i 



\$t?'t&tffiffimm*&Rd&l:'' 



" t r 



-rmniMffwrfirr 



**■"— *- < *-ifni , ai i 'nr* J ' " * i -iot 



HHH 






iWH^^^B 



at wmiif -w..~.t—. ——■ .= r=^ ^ 









liiiMi^ 1 1 ' ~ 




4 



! LIBR' OF CONGRESS. , 
Shelf. > |~f 4 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



DR. HODGE'S OUTLINES OF THEOLOGY. 

(From Reviews of the First Edition.) 

"These 'Outlines' are characterized by a rigid method, and by condensation 
of statement." — Watchman and Reflector {Baptist). 

' ' The style is concise and perspicuous. The matter is derived from the lectures 
of Professor Hodge, of Princeton, with occasional citations from his reviews and 
essays. It may thus be regarded as an authentic and authorized description of the 
Princeton theology, and as such will be sought for by theological students, and 
ministers. It is no more than justice to say that under various heads we find 
valuable arguments and definitions, couched always in clear and manly English." 
• — New Englander. 

"The style of the author is clear, compact, and nervous, condensing the greatest 
amount of matter into the smallest amount of words, and his knowledge of the 
whole subject is so accurate that he is able to give this condensation in its best 
form. One valuable feature of the work is its fulness of Scripture reference, etc., 
when necessary, of criticism, making it a repertory of the ripest results of modern 
investigation as well as of ancient faith." — Central Presbyterian. 

"He has thus produced a work which will be of much convenience and 
advantage to theological students, as also to all who would pursue a course of 
systematic inquiry into the doctrines of Scripture." — Congregational Herald. 

"Dr. Hodge has here prepared a work which can not fail to be of great use 
to pastors, students, and all who are required to keep their theological learning 
well assorted and arranged under proper heads. To ordinary readers the book 
will be found of much value because of its clearness of statement and fulness of 
matter. We commend this really learned book to our readers." — Philadelphia 
Enquirer. 

"Most of our pastors and church members have felt the need of some thorough 
and consecutive course of theological discipline. That Dr. Hodge has faithfully 
and intelligently accomplished this great undertaking we can cheerfully testify. 
Not only are the great outlines of Theology clearly drawn, but the various intri- 
cate questions which surround them are clearly explained." — Our Union. 

ROBERT CARTER AND BROTHERS, 

New York. 



OUTLINES 



THEOLOGY 



REWRITTEN AND ENLARGED. 



BY 

AKCHIBALD ALEXAKDEK HODGE, D.D., 

PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 
PRINCETON, N. .J. 




New York: 

EOBEKT CABTEE AND BEOTHEES, 

530 Broadway. 

1879. 



T 



3 



\s, 



Copyright 1878, 
By Robert Carter and Brothers. 



Cambridge: st. johnland 

press of stereotype foundry, 

JOHN WILSON AND SON. SUFFOLK CO., N. Y. 









PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION. 



In introducing this book to the reader, I have only a 
single word to say upon two points: first, as to the uses 
which I regard this form of exhibiting theological truth 
as being specially qualified to subserve; and, secondly, as 
to the sources from which I have drawn the materials 
composing these " Outlines." 

As to the first point, I have to say, that the concep- 
tion and execution of this work originated in the expe- 
rience of the need for some such manual of theological 
definitions and argumentation, in the immediate work 
of instructing the members of my own pastoral charge. 
The several chapters were in the first instance prepared 
and used in the same form in which they are now 
printed, as the basis of a lecture delivered otherwise 
extemporaneously to my congregation every Sabbath 
night. In this use of them, I found these preparations 
successful beyond my hopes. The congregation, as a 
w T hole, were induced to enter with interest upon the 
study even of the most abstruse questions. Having put 



6 PREFACE TO ORIGINAL EDITION. 

this work thus to this practical test, I now offer it to my 
brethren in the ministry, that they may use it, if they 
will, as a repertory of digested material for the doctrinal 
instruction of their people, either in Bible classes, or by 
means of a congregational lecture. I offer it also as an 
attempt to supply an acknowledged public want, as a 
syllabus of theological study for the use of theological 
students generally, and for the use of those many labo- 
rious preachers of the gospel who can not command the 
time, or who have not the opportunity, or other essential 
means, to study the more expensive and elaborate works 
from which the materials of this compend have been 
gathered. 

The questions have been retained in form, not for 
the purpose of adapting the book in any degree for 
catechetical instruction, but as the most convenient and 
perspicuous method of presenting an "outline of the- 
ology " so condensed. This same necessity of conden- 
sation I would also respectfully plead as in some degree 
an excuse for some of the instances of obscurity in defi- 
nition and meagreness of illustration, which the reader 
will observe. 

In the second place, as to the sources from which I 
have drawn the materials of this book, I may for the 
most part refer the reader to the several passages, where 
the acknowledgment is made as the debt is incurred. 



PREFACE TO ORIGINAL EDITION. 7 

In general, however, it is proper to say that I have, 
with his permission, used the list of questions given by 
my father to his classes of forty-five and six. I have 
added two or three chapters which his course did not 
embrace, and have in general adapted his questions to 
my new purpose, by omissions, additions, or a different 
distribution. To such a degree, however, have they 
directed and assisted me, that I feel a confidence in 
offering the result to the public which otherwise would 
have been unwarrantable. In the frequent instances in 
wdiich I have possessed his published articles upon the 
subjects of the following chapters, the reader will find 
that I have drawn largely from them. It is due to my- 
self, however, to say, that except in two instances, " The 
Scriptures the only Rule of Faith and Judge of Contro- 
versies," and the "Second Advent," I have never heard 
delivered nor read the manuscript of that course of theo- 
logical lectures which he has prepared for the use of his 
classes subsequently to my graduation. In the instances 
I have above excepted, I have attempted little more, in 
the preparation of the respective chapters of this book 
bearing those titles, than to abridge my father's lectures. 
In every instance I have endeavored to acknowledge the 
full extent of the assistance I have derived from others, 
in which I have, I believe, uniformly succeeded, except 
so far -as I am now unable to trace to their original 



8 PREFACE TO ORIGINAL EDITION. 

sources some of the materials collected by me in my 
class manuscripts, prepared fourteen years ago, while a 
student of theology. This last reference relates to a 
large element in this book, as I wrote copiously, and 
after frequent oral communication with my father, both 
in public and private. 

A. A. Hodge. 

Fredericksburg, May, i860. 



PREFACE TO REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION. 



The Preface to the original edition gives a perfectly accu- 
rate and somewhat circumstantial account of the origin of 
this work. Since its first publication the evidences of the 
fact that it met a public need have been multiplying. Its 
sale in America and Great Britain has continued. It has 
been translated into Welsh and Modern Greek, and used in 
several theological training schools. 

The author, in the meantime, has been for fourteen years 
engaged in the practical work of a theological instructor. 
His increased knowledge and experience as a teacher have 
been embodied in this new and enlarged edition, which has 
grown to its present form through several years in connection 
with his actual class instructions. 

The new edition contains nearly fifty per cent more matter 
than the former one. Two chapters have been dropped, and 
five new ones have been added. Extracts from the principal 
Confessions, Creeds, and classical theological writers of the 
great historical churches have been appended to the discus- 
sions of the doctrines concerning which the Church is di- 
vided. Several chapters have been entirely rewritten, and 
many others have been materially recast, and enlarged. And 
the Appendix contains a translation of the Consensus Tigurinus 
of Calvin, and of the Formula Consensus Helvetica of Heideg- 
ger and Turretin, two Confessions of first class historical and 



10 PREFACE TO REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION. 

doctrinal interest to the student of Beformed theology, but 
not easily accessible. 

The work is again offered to the Christian Church, not as 
a complete treatise of Systematic Theology, for the use of the 
proficient, but as a simple Text Book, adapted to the needs 
of students taking their first lessons in this great science, 
and to the convenience of many earnest workers who wish 
to refresh their memories by means of a summary review of 
the ground gone over by them in their earlier studies. 

Princeton, N. J., August 6th, 1878. 



COISTTE^TS. 



CHAPTER I. 

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY; ITS SEVERAL BRANCHES; AND THEIR RELA- 
TION TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. . . 15 



CHAPTER II. 

THE ORIGIN OP THE IDEA OF GOD AND PROOF OF HIS EXISTENCE. 29 

CHAPTER III. 

THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGY 53 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 65 

CHAPTER V. 

THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS THE ONLY 

RULE OF FAITH AND JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES 82 

CHAPTER VI. 

A COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS 94 

CHAPTER VII. 

CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS 112 

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 129 



f 



12 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER IX. 

THE HOLY TRINITY, INCLUDING THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, THE ETER- 
NAL GENERATION OF THE SON, THE PERSONALITY, DIVINITY, 
AND ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST, AND THE 
SEVERAL PROPERTIES AND MUTUAL RELATIONS OF THE PER- 
SONS OF THE GODHEAD. ... * 164 

CHAPTER X. 

THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL 200 

CHAPTER XL 

PREDESTINATION 214 

CHAPTER XII. 

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD 237 

CHAPTER XIII. 

ANGELS 249 

CHAPTER XIY. 

PROVIDENCE 258 

CHAPTER XV. 

THE MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL, WILL, CONSCIENCE, LIB- 
ERTY, ETC 280 

CHAPTER XVI. 

CREATION AND ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN 296 

CHAPTER XVII. 

THE COVENANT OF WORKS 309 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE NATURE OF SIN AND THE SIN OF ADAM 315 

CHAPTER XIX. 

ORIGINAL SIN. — {Peccatum Habituate.) 325 



CONTENTS. 13 

CHAPTER XX. 

INABILITY 338 

CHAPTER XXL 

THE IMPUTATION OF ADAMS FIRST SIN TO HIS POSTERITY. . . . 348 

CHAPTER XXII. 

THE COVENANT OF GRACE 367 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 378 

CHAPTER XXIV. 

THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 391 

CHAPTER XXV. 

THE ATONEMENT : ITS NATURE, NECESSITY, PERFECTION, AND EXTENT. 401 

CHAPTER XXVI. 

THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST 426 

CHAPTER XXVII. 

THE MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST 428 

CHAPTER XXVIII. 

EFFECTUAL CALLING 445 

CHAPTER XXIX. 

REGENERATION 456 

CHAPTER XXX. 

FAITH 465 

CHAPTER XXXI. 

UNION OF BELIEVERS WITH CHRIST 482 



14 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XXXII. 

REPENTANCE, AND THE ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PENANCE 487 

CHAPTER XXXIII. 

JUSTIFICATION. . 496 

CHAPTER XXXIV. 

ADOPTION, AND THE ORDER OF GRACE IN THE APPLICATION OF RE- 
DEMPTION, IN THE SEVERAL PARTS OF JUSTIFICATION, REGEN- 
ERATION, AND SANCTIFICATION 515 

CHAPTER XXXV. 

SANCTIFICATION 520 

CHAPTER XXXVI. 

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS 542 

CHAPTER XXXVII. 

DEATH, AND THE STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH 548 

CHAPTER XXXVIII. 

THE RESURRECTION . . 559 

CHAPTER XXXIX. 

THE SECOND ADVENT AND GENERAL JUDGMENT 566 

CHAPTER XL. 

HEAVEN AND HELL 577 

CHAPTER XLL 

THE SACRAMENTS . 588 

CHAPTER XLII. 

BAPTISM 603 

CHAPTER XLIII. 
the lord's supper. 631 



OUTLINES OF THEOLOGY. 



CHAPTER I. 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY ; ITS SEVERAL BRANCHES ; AND THEIR RE- 
LATION TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. 



1. What is Religion? And ivhat Theology in its Christian 
sense ? 

Religion, in its most general sense, is the sum of the rela- 
tions which man sustains to God, and comprises the truths, the 
experiences, actions, and institutions which correspond to, or 
grow out of those relations. 

Theology, in its most general sense, is the science of 
religion. 

The Christian religion is that body of truths, experiences, 
actions, and institutions which are determined by the revelation 
supernaturally presented in the Christian Scriptures. Chris- 
tian Theology is the scientific determination, interpretation, 
and defence of those Scriptures, together with the history of 
the manner in which the truths it reveals have been under- 
stood, and the duties they impose have been performed, by all 
Christians in all ages. 

2. What is Theological Encyclopaedia ? and what Theological 
Methodology ? 

Theological Encyclopedia, from the Greek hyKvuXoitaidEia 
(the whole circle of general education), presents to the student 
the entire circle of the special sciences devoted to the discov- 
ery, elucidation, and defence of the contents of the supernatural 
revelation contained in the Christian Scriptures, and aims to 
present these sciences in those organic relations which are 
determined by their actual genesis and inmost nature. 

Theological Methodology is the science of theological 
method. As each department of human inquiry demands a 
mode of treatment peculiar to itself; and as even each subdi- 
vision of each general department demands its own special 



16 THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

modifications of treatment, so theological methodology provides 
for the scientific determination of the true method, general 
and special, of pursuing the theological sciences. And this in- 
cludes two distinct categories : (a) The methods proper to the 
original investigation and construction of the several sciences, 
and (b) the methods proper to elementary instruction in the 
same. 

All this should be accompanied with critical and historical 
information, and direction as to the use of the vast literature 
with which these sciences are illustrated. 

3. How far is the scientific arrangement of all the theological 
sciences possible ? And on what account is the attempt desirable ? 

Such an arrangement can approach perfection only in pro- 
portion as these sciences themselves approach their final and 
absolute form. At present every such attempt must be only 
more or less an approximation to an ideal unattainable in the 
present state of knowledge in this life. Every separate attempt 
also must depend for its comparative success upon the compar- 
ative justness of the general theological principles upon which 
it is based. It is evident that those who make Eeason, and 
those who make the inspired Church, and those who make the 
inspired Scriptures the source and standard of all divine knowl- 
edge, must severally configure the theological sciences to the 
different foundations on which they are made to stand. 

The point of view adopted in this book is the evangelical 
and specifically the Calvinistic or Augustinian one, assuming 
the following fundamental principles: 1st. The inspired Script- 
ures are the sole, and an infallible standard of all religious 
knowledge. 2d. Christ and his work is the centre around 
which all Christian theology is brought into order. 3d. The 
salvation brought to light in the gospel is supernatural and of 
Free Grace. 4th. All religious knowledge has a practical end. 
The theological sciences, instead of being absolute ends in them- 
selves, find their noblest purpose and effect in the advancement 
of personal holiness, the more efficient service of our fellow- 
men, and the greater glory of God. 

The advantages of such a grouping of the theological sci- 
ences are obvious, and great. The relations of all truths are 
determined by their nature, whence it follows that their na- 
ture is revealed by an exhibition of their relations. Such an 
exhibition will also tend to widen the mental horizon of the 
student, to incite him to breadth of culture, and prevent him 
from unduly exalting or exclusively cultivating any one special 
branch, and thus from perverting it by regarding it out of its 
natural limitations and dependencies. 



MAIN DIVISIONS. 17 

4 What are the fundamental questions which all theological 
science proposes to answer, and ivhich therefore determine the 
arrangement of the several departments of that general science ? 

1st. Is there a God ? 2d. Has God spoken ? 3d. What has 
God said? 4th. How have men in time past understood his 
word and practically, in their persons and institutions, realized 
his intentions? 

5. What position in an encyclopaedia of theological sciences must 
be given to other branches of human knowledge? 

It is evident that as the Supernatural Eevelation God has 
been pleased to give has come to us in an historical form, that 
history, and that of the Christian Church, is inseparably con- 
nected with all human history more or less directly. Further, 
it is evident that as all truth is one, all revealed truths and 
duties are inseparably connected with all departments of human 
knowledge, and with all the institutions of human society. It 
hence follows that theological science can at no point be sepa- 
rated from general science, that some knowledge of every de- 
partment of human knowledge must always be comprehended 
in every system of Theological Encyclopaedia as auxiliary to 
the Theological sciences themselves. Some of these auxiliary 
sciences sustain special relations to certain of the theological 
sciences, and are very remotely related to others. It is, how- 
ever, convenient to give them a position by themselves, as in 
general constituting a discipline preparatory and auxiliary to 
the science of theology as a whole. 

6. State the main divisions of the proposed arrangement of the 
theological sciences. 

I. Sciences Auxiliary to the study of theology. 

II. Apologetics — embracing the answers to the two ques- 
tions — Is there a God ? and Has God spoken ? 

III. Execjetical Theology — embracing the critical determina- 
tion of the ipsissima verba of the Divine Eevelation, and the 
Interpretation their meaning. 

IV. Systematic Theology — embracing the development into 
an all-embracing and self-consistent system of the contents of 
that Eevelation, and its subsequent elucidation and defence. 

V. Practical Theology — embracing the principles and laws 
revealed in Scripture for the guidance of Christians (a) in the 
promulgation of this divine revelation thus ascertained and 
interpreted, and thus (fr) in bringing all men into practical 
obedience to the duties it imposes and (c) into the fruition of 
the blessings it confers. 

2 



18 THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

VI. Historical Theology — embracing the history of the actual 
development during all past ages and among all people of the 
theoretical and practical elements of that revelation (1) in the 
faith and (2) in the life of the Church. 

7. State the chief departments of human knowledge auxiliary 
to study of Theology. 

1st. As underlying and conditioning all knowledge, we have 
Universal History, and as auxiliary to theological science espe- 
cially the Histories of Eg}^pt, Babylonia, Assyria, Greece, Eome 
and of Mediaeval and Modern Europe. 

2d. Archceology in its most comprehensive sense, including 
the interpretation of inscriptions, monuments, coins, and re- 
mains of art, and the illustrations gathered thence and from all 
other available sources, of the geographical distribution and 
physical conditions, and of the political, religious, and social 
institutions and customs of all peoples, of all ages. 

3d. Ethnology — the science of the divisions of the human 
family into races and nations, and of their dispersion over the 
world — which traces their origin and affiliations and their 
varieties of physical, intellectual, moral, and religious character, 
and the sources and modifying conditions of these variations. 

4th. Comparative Philology, the science which starting from 
the natural groups of human languages, traces the relations 
and origins of languages and dialects, and transcending the 
first dawn of human history, traces the unity of races now 
separated,, and the elements of long extinct civilizations, and 
the facts of historic changes otherwise left without record. 

5th. The Science of Comparative Religion, the critical study 
and comparison of the history, beliefs, spirit, principles, institu- 
tions, and practical character of all the Ethnic religions, tracing 
the light they throw upon (a) human nature and history, (b) 
the moral government of God, and (c) the supernatural revela- 
tion recorded in Scripture. 

6th. Philosophy, the ground and mistress of all the merely 
human sciences. This will include the history of the origin 
and development of all the schools of philosophy, ancient, 
mediaeval, and modern — a critical study and comparison of 
their principles, methods, and doctrines, and the range and 
character of their respective influence upon all other sciences 
and institutions, especially upon those which are political and 
religious, and more especially upon those which are definitely 
Christian. 

7th. Psychology, or that department of experimental science 
which unfolds the laws of action of the human mind under 
normal conditions, as exhibited (a) in the phenomena of indi- 



APOLOGETICS. 19 

vidual consciousness and action, and (b) in the phenomena of 
social and political life. 

8th. JEsthetics, or the science of the laws of the Beautiful in 
all its forms of Music, Rhetoric, Architecture, Painting, etc., 
and the principles and history of every department of art. 

9th. The Physical Sciences, their methods, general and spe- 
cial; their history, genesis, development, and present tendencies ; 
their relation to Philosophy, especially to Theism and natural 
religion, to civilization, to the Scriptural records historically and 
doctrinally. 

10th. Statistics, or that department of investigation which 
aims to present us with a full knowledge of the present state 
of the human family in the world, in respect to every meas- 
urable variety of condition — as to numbers and state, physical, 
intellectual, religious, social, and political, of civilization, com- 
merce, literature, science, art, etc., etc. ; from which elements 
the immature forms of social science and political economy are 
being gradually developed. 

8. What particulars are embraced under the head of Apolo- 
getics ? 

This department falls under two heads: (1.) Is there a God. 
(2.) Has He spoken; and includes — 

1st. The proof of the being of God, that is of an extra- 
mundane person transcendent yet immanent, creating, pre- 
serving, and governing all things according to his eternal plan. 
This will involve the discussion and refutation of all Antithe- 
istic systems, as Atheism, Pantheism, Naturalistic Deism, Ma- 
terialism, etc. 

2d. The Development of Natural Theology, embracing the re- 
lation of God to intelligent and responsible agents as Moral 
Governor, and the indications of his will and purpose, and con- 
sequently of the duties and destinies of mankind, as far as these 
can be traced by the light of Nature — 

3d. The evidences of Christianity, including — 

(1.) The discussion of the proper use of reason in religious 
questions. 

(2.) The demonstration of the a priori possibility of a super- 
natural revelation. 

(3.) The necessity for and the probability of such a revelation, 
the character of God and the condition of man as revealed by 
the light of nature, being considered. 

(4) The positive proof of the actual fact that such a reve- 
lation has been given (a) through the Old Testament prophets, 
(b) through the New Testament prophets, and (c) above all in 
the person and work of Christ. This will involve, of course, 



20 THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

a critical discussion of all the evidence bearing on this sub- 
ject, external and internal, historical, rational, moral, and spirit- 
ual, natural and supernatural, theoretical and practical, and a 
refutation of all the criticism, historical and rational, which has 
been brought to bear against the fact of revelation or the in- 
tegrity of the record. Much that is here adduced will of course 
necessarily be also comprehended under the heads of Systematic 
and of Exegetical Theology. 

9. What is embraced under Exegetical Theology ? 

If the facts (1) That there is a God, and (2) that he has 
spoken, be established, it remains to answer the question, 
"What has God said?" Exegetical Theology is the general 
title of that department of theological science which aims at 
the Interpretation of the Scriptures as the word of God, recorded 
in human language, and transmitted to us through human 
channels; and in order to this, Interpretation aims to gather 
and organize all that knowledge which is necessarily intro- 
ductory thereto. This includes the answer to two main ques- 
tions : (1) What books form the canon, and what were the exact 
words of which the original autographs of the writers of these 
several books consisted, and (2) What do those divine words, 
so ascertained, mean. 

The answers to all questions preliminary to actual Interpre- 
tation, come under the head of Introduction, and this is divided 

(1) into General Introduction, presenting all that information, 
preliminary to interpretation, which stands related in common 
to the Bible as a whole, or to each Testament as a whole, and 

(2) into Special Introduction, which includes all necessaiy prepa- 
ration for the interpretation of each book of the Bible in detail. 

A. General Introduction includes — 

1st. The Higher Criticism or the canvass of the extant 
evidences of all kinds establishing the authenticity and genuine- 
ness of each book in the sacred canon. 

' 2d. The Criticism of the Text, which, from a comparison of 
the best ancient manuscripts and versions, from internal evi- 
dence, and by means of a critical history of the text from its 
first appearance to the present, seeks to determine the ijDsissima 
verba of the original autographs of the inspired writers. 

3d. Biblical Philology, which answers the questions: Why 
were different languages used in the record ? and why Hebrew 
and Greek ? What are the special characteristics of the dia- 
lects of those languages actually used, and their relation to the 
families of language to which they belong ? And what were 
the special characteristics of dialect, style, etc., of the sacred 
writers individually. 



EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY. 21 

4th. Biblical Archceology, including the physical and political 
geography of Bible lands during the course of Bible history, 
and determining the physical, ethnological, social, political, 
and religious conditions of the people among whom the Script- 
ures originated, together with an account of their customs and 
institutions, and of the relation of these to those of their ances- 
tors and of their contemporaries. 

5th. Hermeneutics, or the scientific determination of the prin- 
ciples and rules of Biblical Interpretation, including (1) the 
logical and grammatical and rhetorical principles determining 
the interpretation of human language in general, (2) the mod- 
ification of these principles appropriate to the interpretation of 
the specific forms of human discourse, e. g., history, poetry, 
prophecy, parable, symbol, etc., and (3) those further modifica- 
tions of these principles appropriate to the interpretation of 
writings supernaturally inspired. 

6th. Apologetics having established the fact that the Chris- 
tian Scriptures are the vehicle of a supernatural revelation, we 
must now discuss and determine the nature and extent of Bib- 
lical Inspiration as far as this is determined by the claims and 
the phenomena of the Scriptures themselves. 

7th. The History of Interpretation, including the history 
of ancient and modern versions and schools of interpreta- 
tion, illustrated by a critical comparison of the most eminent 
commentaries. 

B. Special Introduction treats of each book of the Bible by 
itself, and furnishes all that knowledge concerning its dialect, 
authorship, occasion, design, and reception that is necessary for 
its accurate interpretation. 

C Exegesis proper is the actual application of all the knowl- 
edge gathered, and of all the rules developed, in the preceding 
departments of Introduction to the Interpretation of the sacred 
text, as it stands in its original connections of Testaments, 
books, paragraphs, etc. 

Following the laws of grammar, the usus loquendi of words, 
the analogy of Scripture, and the guidance of the Holy Ghost, 
Exegesis seeks to determine the mind of the Spirit as expressed 
in the inspired sentences as they stand in their order. 

There are several special departments classed under the 
general head of Exegetical Theology, which involve in some 
degree that arrangement and combination of Scripture testi- 
monies under topics or subjects, which is the distinctive char- 
acteristic of Systematic Theology. 

These are — 

1st. Typology, which embraces a scientific determination of 
the laws of Biblical symbols and types, and their interpretation, 



22 THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

especially those of the Mosaic ritual as related to the person 
and work of Christ. 

2d. Old Testament Christology, the critical exposition of the 
Messianic idea as it is developed in the Old Testament. 

3d. Biblical Theology, which traces the gradual evolution of 
the several elements of revealed truth from their first sugges- 
tion through every successive stage to their fullest manifesta- 
tion in the sacred text, and which exhibits the peculiar forms 
and connections in which these several truths are presented by 
each inspired writer. 

4th. The Development of the principles of Prophetical In- 
terpretation and their, application to the construction of an 
outline of the Prophesies of both Testaments. — "Notes on New 
Testament Literature," by Dr. J. A. Alexander. 

10. What is embraced under the head of Systematic Theology. 

As the name imports, Systematic Theology has for its object 
the gathering all that the Scriptures teach as to what we are 
to believe and to do, and the presenting all the elements of this 
teaching in a symmetrical system. The human mind must 
seek unity in all its knowledge. God's truth is one, and all 
the contents of all revelations natural and supernatural must 
constitute one self-contained system, each part organically re- 
lated to every other. 

The method of construction is inductive. It rests upon the 
results of Exegesis for its foundation. Passages of Scripture 
ascertained and interpreted are its data. These when rightly 
interpreted reveal their own relations and place in the system 
of which the Person and work of Christ is the centre. And as 
the contents of revelation stand intimately related to all the 
other departments of human knowledge, the work of Systematic 
Theology necessarily involves the demonstration and illustra- 
tion of the harmony of all revealed truth with all valid science, 
material and psychological, with all true speculative philosophy, 
and with all true moral philosophy and practical philanthropy. 

It includes — (1.) The construction of all the contents of 
revelation into a complete system of faith and duties. (2.) The 
history of this process as it has prevailed in the Church during 
the past. (3.) Polemics. 

I. The construction of all the contents of revelation into a 
complete system. This includes the scientific treatment (a) 
of all the matters of faith revealed, and (b) of all the duties 
enjoined. 

In the arrangement of topics the great majority of theolo- 
gians have followed what Dr. Chalmers calls the synthetical 
method. Starting with the idea and nature of God revealed in 



SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. ' 23 

the Scriptures, they trace his eternal purposes and temporal 
acts in creation, providence, and redemption to the final con- 
summation. The Doctor himself prefers what he calls the 
analytic method, and starts with the facts of experience and 
the light of nature, and man's present morally diseased con- 
dition, leads upward to redemption and to the character of God 
as revealed therein. 

Following the former of these methods all the elements of 
the system are usually grouped under the following heads: 

1st. Theology proper: including the existence, attributes, 
triune personality of God, together with his eternal purposes, 
and temporal acts of creation, and providence. 

2d. Anthropology : (doctrine of man) including the creation 
and nature of man, his original state, fall, and consequent moral 
ruin. This embraces the Biblical Psychology, and the Script- 
ural doctrine of sin, its nature, origin, and mode of propagation. 

3d. Soteriology : (doctrine of salvation) which includes the 
plan, execution, and application and glorious effects of human 
salvation. This embraces Christology (the doctrine of Christ), 
the incarnation, the constitution of Christ's person, his life, 
death, and resurrection, together with the office-work of the 
Holy Ghost, and the means of grace, the word and sacraments. 

4th. Christian Ethics: embracing the principles, rules, mo- 
tives, and aids of human duty revealed in the Bible as deter- 
mined (a) by his natural relations as a man with his fellows, 
and (b) his supernatural relations as a redeemed man. 

5th. Eschatology (science of last things) comprehending 
death, the intermediate state of the soul, the second advent, the 
resurrection of the dead, the general judgment, heaven and hell. 

6th. Ecclesiology (science of the Church); including the 
scientific determination of all that the Scriptures teach as to 
the Church visible and invisible, in its temporal and in its 
eternal state; including the Idea of the Church — its true defi- 
nition — its constitution and organization, its officers and their 
functions. A comparison and criticism of all the modifications 
of ecclesiastical organization that have ever existed, together 
with their genesis, history, and practical effects. 

II. Doctrine-History, which embraces the history of each 
of these great doctrines traced in its first appearance and sub- 
sequent development, through the controversies it excited and 
the Confessions in which it is defined. 

III. Polemics, or Controversial Theology, including the de- 
fence of the true system of doctrine as a whole and of each 
constituent element of it in detail against the perversions of 
heretical parties within the pale of the general Church. This 
embraces — (1.) The general principles and trite method of relig- 



24 THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

ious controversies. (2.) The definition of the true Status Quces- 
tionis in each controversy, and an exposition of the sources of 
evidence and of the methods, defensive and offensive, by which 
the truth is to be vindicated. (3.) The history of controversies. 

11. What is embraced under the head of Practical Theology? 

Practical Theology is both a science and an art. As an art 
it has for its purpose the effective publication of the contents 
of revelation among all men, and the perpetuation, extension, 
and edification of the earthly kingdom of God. As a science 
it has for its province the revealed principles and laws of the 
art above defined. Hence as Systematic Theology roots itself 
in a thorough Exegesis at once scientific and spiritual, so does 
Practical Theology root itself in the great principles developed 
by Systematic Theology, the department of Ecclesiology being 
common ground to both departments: the product of the one, 
and the foundation of the other. 

It includes the following main divisions — 

1st. The discussion of the Idea and Design of the Church, 
and of its divinely revealed attributes. 

2d. The determination of the divinely appointed constitu- 
tion of the Church, and methods of administration, with the 
discussion and refutation of all the rival forms of Church organ- 
ization that have prevailed, their history, and that of the con- 
troversies which they have occasioned. 

3d. The discussion of the nature and extent of the discre- 
tion Christ has allowed his followers in adjusting the methods 
of ecclesiastical organization and administration to changing 
social and historical conditions. 

4th. Church membership, its conditions, and the relation to 
Christ involved, together with the duties and privileges abso- 
lute and relative of the several classes of members. The rela- 
tion of baptized children to the Church, and the relative duties 
of Parents and of the Church in relation to them. 

5th. The Officers of the Church — extraordinary and tempo- 
rary ; ordinary and perpetual. 

(1.) Their call and ordination; their relations to Christ and 
to the Church. 

(2.) Their functions — 

A. As Teachers — including — 

(a.) Catechetics, its necessity, principles, and history. 

(b.) Sunday-schools. The duties of parents and of the 
Church in respect to the religious education of children. 

(c.) Sacred Rhetoric. Homiletics and pnlpit elocution. 

(d.) Christian literature. The newspaper, and periodicals 
and permanent books. 



PRACTICAL THEOLOGY. 25 

B. As Leaders of Worship, including — 

(a.) Liturgies, their uses, abuses, and history. 

(b. ) Free forms of prayer. 

(c.) Psalmody, inspired and uninspired, its uses and history. 

(d.) Sacred Music, vocal and instrumental uses and history. 

C. As Rulers — 

(a.) The office, qualification, duties and Scriptural Warrant 
of Ruling Elders — 

(b.) The office, qualification, duties, mode of election, and 
ordination, and Scriptural Warrant of the New -Testament 
Bishop or Pastor. 

(c.) The Session, its constitution and functions. The the- 
ory and practical rules and methods of Church discipline. 

(d.) The Presbytery and its constitution and functions. 
The theory and practical rules and precedents regulating the 
action of Church courts, in the exercise of the constitutional 
right of Review and Control in the issue and conduct of trials, 
complaints, appeals, etc., etc. 

(e.) The Synod and General Assembly and their constitu- 
tion and functions. The Principles and policy of Committees, 
Commissioners, Boards, etc., etc. 

This leads to the functions of the Church as a whole, and 
the warrant for and the uses and abuses of Denominational dis- 
tinctions, and the relations of the different Denominations to 
one another. 

1st. Church Statistics, including our own Church, other 
Churches, and the world. 

2d. Christian, social, and ecclesiastical economics, including 
the duties of Christian stewardship, personal consecration, and 
systematic benevolence. The relation of the Church to the 
poor and to criminals, the administration of orphan asylums, 
hospitals, prisons, etc. The relation of the Church to volun- 
tary societies, Young Men's Christian Associations, etc., etc. 

3d. The education of the ministry, the policy, constitution 
and administration of theological seminaries. 

4th. Domestic Missions, including aggressive evangeliza- 
tion, support of the ministry among the poor, Church exten- 
sion and Church erection. 

5th. The relation of the Church to the state, and the true 
relation of the state to religion, and the actual condition of the 
common and statute law with relation to Church property, and 
the action of Church Courts in the exercise of discipline, etc. 
The obligations of Christian citizenship. The relation of the 
Church to civilization, to moral reforms, to the arts, sciences, 
social refinements, etc., etc. 

6th. Foreign Missions in all their departments. 



26 THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

See " Lectures on Theological Encyclopaedia and Method- 
ology," by Rev. John M'Clintock, D.D., LL.D., edited by J. T. 
Short, B.D.; and " Bibliotheca Sacra," Vol. 1, 1844; ''Theolog- 
ical Encyclopaedia and Methodology," from unpublished lecture 
of Prof. Tholuck, by Prof. E. A. Park. 

12. What is embraced under the head of Historical Theology ? 

According to the logical evolution of the whole contents 
of the theological sciences, the Interpretation of the letter of 
Scripture, and the construction of the entire System of related 
truths and duties revealed therein, must precede the History 
of the actual development of that revelation in the life and 
faith of the Church. Just as the fountain must precede the 
stream which flows from it. Yet, as a matter of fact, in the 
actual study of the family of theological sciences, History must 
precede and lay the foundation for all the rest. History alone 
gives us the Scriptures in which our revelation is recorded, 
and the means whereby the several books and their ipsissima 
verba are critically ascertained. We are indebted to the same 
source for our methods of interpretation, and for their results 
as illustrated in the body of theological literature accumulated 
in the past; also for our creeds and confessions and records of 
controversies, and hence for the records preserving the gradual 
evolution of our system of doctrine. In the order of pro- 
duction and of acquisition History comes first, while in the 
order of a logical exposition of the constituent theological 
sciences in their relations within the system, History has the 
honor of crowning the whole series. 

Historical Theology is divided into Biblical and Ecclesiastical. 
The first derived chiefly from inspired sources, and continuing 
down to the close of the New Testament canon. The latter 
beginning where the former ends, and continuing to the pres- 
ent time. 

Biblical History is subdivided into — 1st. Old Testament 
History, including (1) the Patriarchal, (2) Mosaic, and (3) Pro- 
phetical eras, together with (4) the history of the chosen peo- 
ple during the interval between the close of the Old and the 
opening of the New Testament. 2d. New Testament His- 
tory, including (1) the life of Christ, (2) The founding of the 
Christian Church by the Apostles down to the end of the first 
century. 

With respect to Ecclesiastical History several preliminary 
departments of study are essential to its prosecution as a 
science. 

1st. Several of the auxiliary sciences already enumerated 
must be cited as specifically demanded in this connection. 



HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. 27 

These are — (1.) Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern Geography. 
(2.) Chronology. (3.) The Antiquities of all the peoples embraced 
in the area through which the Church has at any period ex- 
tended. (4.) Statistics, exhibiting the actual condition of the 
world at any particular period. (5. ) The entire course of General 
History. 

2d. The Sources from which Ecclesiastical History is de- 
rived should be critically investigated. (1. ) Monumental sources, 
such as (a) buildings, (b) inscriptions, (c) coins, etc. (2.) Docu- 
mental, which are — (a.) Public, such as the Acts of Councils, 
the briefs, decretals, and bulls of Popes ; the archives of govern- 
ments, and the creeds, confessions, catechisms, and liturgies of 
the Churches, etc., etc. (b.) Private documents, such as con- 
temporary literature of all kinds, pamphlets, biographies, 
annals, and later reports and compilations. 

3d. The History of the literature of ecclesiastical history 
from Eusebius to Neander, Kurtz, and Schaff. The methods 
which have been and which should be followed in the arrange- 
ment of the material of Church History. 

The actual Method always has been and probably always 
will be a combination of the two natural methods — (a) chrono- 
logical, and (b) topical. 

The fundamental principle upon which, according to Dr. 
M 'Clint ock, the materials of Church History should be ar- 
ranged, is the distinction between the life and the faith of the 
Church. The two divisions therefore, are (1) History of the 
life of the Church, or Church History proper, and (2) History 
of the thought of the Church, or Doctrine-History. 

1st. The History of the Life of the .Church deals with per- 
sons, communities, and events, and should be treated according 
to the ordinary methods of historical composition. 

2d. The History of the Thought of the Church comprises — 

(1.) Patristics, or the literature of the early Christian Fathers ; 
and Patrology, or a scientific exhibition of their doctrine. 

These Fathers are grouped under three heads — (a) Apostol- 
ical, (b) Ante-Nicene, and (c) Post-Nicene, terminating with 
Gregory the Great among the Latins, a. d. 604, and with John 
of Damascus among the Greeks, a. d. 754. This study involves 
the discussion of (a) the proper use of these Fathers, and their 
legitimate authority in modern controversies; (b) a full history 
of their literature, and of the principal editions of their works ; 
and (c) the meaning, value, and doctrine of each individual 
Father separately — 

(2.) Christian Archaeology, which treats of the usage, wor- 
ship, discipline of the early Church, and the history of Chris- 
tian worship, art, architecture, poetry, painting, music, etc., etc. 



28 THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

(3.) Doctrine-History, or the critical history of the genesis 
and development of each element of the doctrinal system of 
the Church, or of any of its historical branches, with an account 
of all the heretical forms of doctrine from which the truth has 
been separated, and the history of all the controversies by 
means of which the elimination has been effected. This will, 
of course, be accompanied with a critical history of the entire 
Literature of Doctrine-History, of the principles recognized, 
the methods pursued, and the works produced. 

(4.) Symbolics, which involves — (a.) The scientific deter- 
mination of the necessity for and uses of public Creeds and 
Confessions, (b.) The history of the occasions, of the actual 
genesis, and subsequent reception, authority, and influence 
of each one of the Creeds and Confessions of Christendom, 
(c.) The study of the doctrinal contents of each Creed, and of 
each group of Creeds separately, and (d.) Comparative Sym- 
bolics, or the comparative study of all the Confessions of the 
Church, and thence a systematic exhibition of all their respect- 
ive points of agreement and of contrast. 

M'Clintock's "Theological Encyclopaedia " ; "Notes on Ec- 
clesiastical History," by Dr. J. A. Alexander, edited by Dr. S. 
D. Alexander. 



CHAPTER II. 

ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF GOD AND PROOF OF HIS EXISTENCE. 

1. What is the distinction betiveen a nominal, and a real defi- 
nition ? and give the true definition of the ivord God. 

A nominal definition simply explains the meaning of the 
term used, while a real definition explains the nature of the 
thing signified by the term. 

The English word God is by some derived from "good." 
Since, however, its various forms in cognate languages could 
not have had that origin, others derive it from the Persic Choda 
— dominus, "possessor." The Latin Deus, and the Greek ®e6s 
have been commonly derived from the Sanscrit div to give 
"light." But Curtius, Cremer, and others derive it from Bed in 
Qe6da60ai " to implore." &s6s is "He to whom one prays." 

The word God is often used in a pantheistic sense, for the 
impersonal, unconscious ground of all being, and by many for 
the unknowable first cause of the existent world. It is for this 
reason that so many speculators, who actually or virtually deny 
the existence of the God of Christendom, yet indignantly repu- 
diate the charge of atheism, because they admit the existence 
of a self-existent substance or first cause to which they give the 
name God, while they deny to it the possession of the prop- 
erties generally designated by the term. 

But, as a matter of fact, in consequence of the predomi- 
nance of Christian ideas in the literature of civilized nations 
for the last eighteen centuries, the term "God" has attained the 
definite and permanent sense of a self-existent, eternal, and 
absolutely perfect free personal Spirit, distinct from and sov- 
ereign over the world he has created. 

The man who denies the existence of such a being denies 
God. 

2. How can a "veal" definition of God he constructed? 

Evidently God can be defined only in so far as he is known 
to us, and the condition of the possibility of our knowing him 



30 THE BEING OF GOD. 

is the fact that we were created in his image. Every definition 
of God must assume this fact, that in an essential sense he and 
his intelligent creatures are beings of the same genus. He is 
therefore defined by giving his genus and specific difference. 
Thus he is as to genus, an intelligent personal Spirit. He is, 
as to his specific difference, as to that which constitutes him 
God, infinite, eternal, unchangeable in his being, in his wisdom, 
in his poAver, in his holiness, and in all perfections consistent 
with his being. 

3. To what extent is the idea of God due to Tradition ? 

It is evident that the complete idea of God presented in the 
foregoing definition has been attained only by means of the 
supernatural revelation recorded in the Christian Scriptures. 
It is a fact also that the only three Theistic religions which 
have ever prevailed among men (the Jewish, Mohammedan 
and Christian) are historically connected with the same revela- 
tion. It is also, of course, in vain to speculate as to what 
would be the action of the human mind independent of all 
inherited habits, and of all traditional opinions. We are en- 
tirely without experience or testimony as to any kind of knowl- 
edge attained or judgments formed under such conditions. It 
is moreover certain that the form in which the theistic concep- 
tion is realized, and the associations with which it is accom- 
panied, are determined in the case of each community by the 
theological traditions they have inherited from their fathers. 

It is, on the other hand, indubitably certain that all men 
under all known, and therefore under all truly natural con- 
ditions, do spontaneously recognize the divine existence as 
more or less clearly revealed to them in the constitution and 
conscious experience of their own souls, and in external nature. 
The theistic conception hence is no more due to authority, as 
often absurdly charged, than the belief in the subjective reality 
of spirit or in the objective reality of matter formed under the 
same educational conditions. The recognition of the self-man- 
ifest God is spontaneous, and universal, which proves the evi- 
dence to be clear and everywhere present, and convincing to 
all normally developed men. 

4. Is the idea of God innate ? And is it an intuitive truth ? 

That depends upon the sense in which the respective terms 
are taken. It is evident that there are no " innate " ideas in 
the sense that any child was ever born with a conception of 
the divine being, or any other conception already formed in his 
mind. It is also certain that the human mind when developed 
under purely natural conditions, in the absence of all super- 



IN WHAT SENSE INNATE? 31 

-natural revelation, can never attain to an adequate conception 
of the divine nature. On the other hand, however, all history 
proves that the idea of God is innate in the sense that the 
constitutional faculties of the human soul do, under all natural 
conditions, secure the spontaneous recognition, more or less 
clear, of God as the ultimate ground of all being, and as the 
Lord of conscience, self-manifested in the soul and in the world. 
It is innate in so much as the evidence is as universally present 
as the light of day, and the process by which it is apprehended 
is constitutional. 

If the term "intuition" is taken in its strict sense of a direct 
vision of a truth, seen in its own light to be necessary, by an 
intellectual act incapable of being resolved into more elementary 
processes of thought, then the existence of God is not a truth 
apprehended intuitively by men. The process whereby it is 
reached, whether spontaneously or by elaborate reasoning, em- 
braces many indubitable intuitions as elements, but no man 
apprehends God himself by a direct intuition. 

Because — (1.) Although the recognition of the divine exist- 
ence is necessary in the sense that the great majority of men 
recognize the truth, and are unable to disbelieve it even when 
they wish, and no one can do so without doing violence to his 
nature, yet it is not necessary to thought in the sense that the 
non-existence of God is unthinkable. (2.) Because God mani- 
fests himself to us not immediately but mediately through his 
works, and there is always present, at least implicitly, an infer- 
ence in the act whereby the soul recognizes his presence and 
action. (3.) The true idea of God is exceedingly complex, and 
is reached by a complex process, whether spontaneous or not, 
involving various elements capable of analysis and description. 

On the other hand it is true that God manifests himself in 
his working in our souls and in external nature just as the 
invisible souls of our fellow-men manifest themselves, and we 
spontaneously recognize him just as we do them. We recog- 
nize them because (a) we are generically like them, and (b) their 
attributes are signincally expressed in their words and actions. 
And we recognize God because (a) we have been made in his 
image, which fact we spontaneously recognize (b) from his self- 
revelations in consciousness, especially in conscience, and from 
the characteristics of the external world. 

"While the mental process which has been described — the 
theistic inference — is capable of analysis, it is itself synthetic. 
The principles on which it depends ure so connected that the 
mind can embrace them all in a single act, and must include 
and apply them all in the apprehension of God. Will, intel- 
ligence, conscience, reason, and the ideas which they supply ; 



32 THE BEING OF GOD. 

cause, design, goodness, infinity, and the arguments which 
rest on these ideas — all coalesce into this one grand issue." — 
"Theism" by Prof. Flint, pp. 71, 72. . 

5. If the existence of God is spontaneously recognized by all men 
under normal conditions of consciousness, ivhat is the value of formal 
arguments to prove that existence ? And ivhat are the arguments 
generally used ? 

1st. These arguments are of value as analyses and scientific 
verifications of the mental processes implicitly involved in 
the spontaneous recognition of the self-manifestations of God. 
2d. They are of use also for the purpose of vindicating the 
legitimacy of the process against the criticisms of skeptics. 
3d. Also for the purpose of quickening and confirming the spon- 
taneous recognition by drawing attention to the extent and 
variety of the evidence to which it responds. 4th. The vari- 
ous arguments are convergent rather than consecutive. They 
do not all establish the same elements of the theistic concep- 
tion, but each establishes independently its separate element, 
and thus is of use (a) in contributing confirmatory evidence that 
God is, and (b) complementary evidence as to ivhat God is. 

They constitute an organic whole, and are the analysis and 
illustration of the spontaneous act whereby the mass of men 
have always recognized God. "Although causality does not 
involve design, nor design goodness, design involves causality, 
and goodness both causality and design. The proofs of intelli- 
gence are also proofs of power ; and the proofs of goodness are 
proofs of both intelligence and power. The principles of reason 
which compel us to think of the Supreme Moral Intelligence as 
self-existent, eternal, infinite, and unchangeable Being, supple- 
ment the proofs from other sources, and give self-consistency 
and completeness to the doctrine of theism." — "Theism," Prof. 
Flint, pp. 73, 74 

The usual arguments will be examined under the following 
heads : 

1st. The Cosmological Argument, or the evidence for God's 
existence as First Cause. 

2d. The Teleological Argument, or the evidence of God's 
existence afforded by the presence of order and adaptation in 
the universe. 

3d. The Moral Argument, or the evidence afforded by the 
moral consciousness and history of mankind. 

4th. The evidence afforded by the phenomena of Scripture 
and the supernatural history they record. 

5th. The A priori Argument, and the testimony afforded by 
reason to God as the Infinite and Absolute. 



THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 33 

6. State the Cosmological Argument. 

It may be stated in the form of a syllogism, thus — 

Major Premise. — Every new existence or change in any 
thing previously existing must have had a cause pre-existing 
and adequate. 

Minor Premise. — The universe as a whole and in all its 
parts is a system of changes. 

Conclusion. — Hence the universe must have a cause exterior 
to itself, and the ultimate or absolute cause must be eternal, 
uncaused, and unchangeable. 

1st. As to the major premise; the causal judgment is in- 
tuitive and absolutely universal and necessary. It has been 
denied theoretically by some speculators, as Hume and Mill, 
but it is always used by them and all others in all their rea- 
soning as to the origin of the world, as well as of all things it 
contains. The judgment is unavoidable; the opposite is un- 
thinkable. Something exists now, therefore something must 
have existed from eternity, and that which has existed from 
eternity is the cause of that which exists now. 

It has been claimed that the causal judgment leads to an 
infinite regressive series of causes and effects. But this is 
absurd. (1.) The judgment is not that every thing must have 
a cause, but that every new thing or change must have been 
caused. But that which is eternal and immutable needs no 
cause. (2.) An infinite series of causes and effects is absurd, 
for that is only a series of changes, which is precisely that 
which demands a cause, and all the more imperatively in pro- 
portion to its length. A real cause, on the other hand, — that 
in which the causal judgment can alone absolutely rest, — must 
be neither a change nor a series of changes, but something 
uncaused, eternal and immutable. 

As a matter of fact all philosophers and men of science 
without exception assume the principles asserted. They all 
postulate an eternal, self-existent, unchangeable cause of the 
universe, whether a personal spirit, or material atoms, or a 
substance of which both matter and spirit are modes, or an 
unconscious intelligent world-soul in union with matter. 

2d. As to the minor premise. The fact that the universe 
as a whole and in all its parts is a system of changes is empha- 
sized by every principle and lesson of modern science. Every 
discovery in the fields of geology and astronomy, and all spec- 
ulation — as the nebular hypothesis and the hypothesis of evolu- 
tion — embody this principle as their very essence. 

But John Stuart Mill in his "Essay on Theism," pp. 142. 143, 
says: "There is in nature a permanent element, and also a 



34 THE BEING OF GOD. 

changeable: the changes are always the effects of previous 
changes ; the permanent existences, so far as we know, are not 
effects at all. . . . There is in every object another and 
permanent element, viz., the specific elementary substance or 
substances of which it consists, and their inherent properties. 
These are not known as beginning to exist; within the range 
of human knowledge they had no beginning, consequently no 
cause; though they themselves are causes or concauses of every 
thing that takes place." "Whenever a physical phenomenon 
is traced to its cause, that cause when analyzed is found to be 
a certain quantum of force, combined with certain collocations. 
. . . The force itself is essentially one and the same, and 
there exists of it in nature a fixed quantity, which (if the the- 
ory of the conservation of forces be true) is never increased 
or diminished. Here then we find in the changes of material 
nature a permanent element, to all appearance the very one 
of which we are in quest. This it is apparently to which, if to 
any thing, we must assign the character of First Cause." — 
"Essay on Theism," pp. 144, 145. 

We answer — (1.) The existence of "Energy" in any of its 
convertible forms dissociated from matter is absolutely un- 
thinkable. This is recognized as an unquestionable scientific 
truth by Stewart and Tait ("Unseen Universe," p. 79). (2.) It 
is an obvious fact "that all but an exceedingly small frac- 
tion of the light and heat of the sun and stars goes out into 
space, and does not return to them. In the next place the vis- 
ible motion of the large bodies of the universe is gradually 
being stopped by something which may be denominated ethe- 
rial friction," and at last they must fall together, and constitute 
by successive aggregations one mass. "In fine the degradation 
of Energy of the visible universe proceeds, pari passu, with 
the aggregation of mass. The very fact, therefore, that the 
large masses of the visible universe are of finite size, is suffi- 
cient to assure us that the process can not have been going on 
forever, or in other words that the visible universe must have 
had an origin in time" — since (a) Energy remains aggregated 
in finite quantities yet undiffused, and (b) since the matter of 
the universe still remains in separate masses. Thus the very 
law of the correlation of Energy to which Mill appeals proves, 
when really tested, that the visible universe had a beginning 
and will have an end. Stewart and Tait ("Unseen Universe," 
p. 166). (3.) His assumption, also, that the matter of the uni- 
verse is in its ultimate atoms eternal and unchangeable, is un- 
proved and contrary to scientific analogy. Clark Maxwell (in 
his address as President of the British Association for Advance- 
ment of Science, 1870) says: "The exact equality of each mole- 



THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 35 

cule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Her- 
schell has well said, the essential character of a manufactured 
article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-ex- 
istent." (4.) As a matter of fact all evolution theories as to 
the genesis of the universe necessarily postulate a commence- 
ment in time, and a primordial fire-mist. But this fire-mist 
can not be the First Cause the causal judgment demands, be- 
cause it is not eternal and immutable. If eternal it would be 
fully developed. If fully developed it could not develop into 
the universe. If immutable it could not pass into change. If 
not immutable it is itself, like the universe which issues from 
it, a transient condition of matter, like all other change de- 
manding for itself a cause. 

7. State the Teleological Argument 

Teleology from reXoi, end, and \6yo%, discourse, is the sci- 
ence of final causes, or of purposes or design as exhibited in the 
adjustments of parts to wholes, of means to ends, of organs to 
uses in nature. It is also familiarly called the Argument from 
Design; and is ultimately based upon the recognition of the 
operations of an intelligent cause in nature. It may be profit- 
ably stated in two forms based respectively on the more general 
and the more special manifestations of that intelligence. 

First Form. Major Premise. — Universal order and harmony 
in the conspiring operation of a vast multitude of separate ele- 
ments can be explained only by the postulate of an intelligent 
cause. 

Minor Premise. — The universe as a whole and in all its parts 
is a fabric of the most complex and symmetrical order. 

Conclusion. — Therefore the eternal and absolute cause of the 
universe is an intelligent mind. 

Second Form. Major Premise. — The adjustment of parts and 
the adaptation of means to effect an end or purpose can be ex- 
plained only by reference to a designing intelligence and will. 

Minor Premise. — The universe is full of such adjustments of 
parts, and of organisms composed of parts conspiring to effect 
an end. 

Conclusion. — Therefore the First Cause of the universe must 
be an intelligent mind and will. 

These arguments if valid amount to proving that God is 
an eternal self-existing Person. For the assumption of an un- 
conscious intelligence, or of an intelligence producing effects 
without the exercise of will is absurd. These phrases repre- 
sent no possible ideas. And intelligence and will together 
constitute personality. 

As to the first form of the argument it is evident that the 



36 THE BEING OF GOD. 

very fact that science is possible is an indubitable proof that 
the order of nature is intellectual. Science is a product of the 
human mind, which is absolutely incapable of passing beyond 
the laws of its own constitution. Intuitions of reason, logical 
processes of analysis, inductive or deductive inference, imagi- 
nation, invention, and all the activities of the soul organize the 
scientific process. To all this external nature is found perfectly 
to correspond. Even the most subtle solutions of abstract 
mathematical and mechanical problems have been subsequently 
found by experiment to have been anticipated in nature. The 
laws of nature are expressions of numerical and geometrical 
harmonies, and are instinct with reason and beauty. Yet these 
laws although invariable under invariable conditions, are nei- 
ther eternal nor inherent in the elementary constitution of the 
universe. The properties of elemental matter are constant, 
but the laws which organize them are themselves complicated 
effects resulting from antecedent adjustments of these elements 
themselves under the categories of time, place, quantity, and 
quality. As these adjustments change the laws change. These 
adjustments, therefore, are the cause of these laws, and the ad- 
justments themselves must be the product either of chance, 
which is absurd, or of intelligence, which is certain. 

This intellectual order of nature is the first necessary postu- 
late of all science, and it is the essence of all the processes of 
the universe from the grouping of atoms to the revolution of 
worlds, from the digestion of a polyp to the functional action 
of the human brain. 

As to the second form of this Argument. — The principle of 
design presupposes the general intellectual order of the uni- 
verse and her laws, and presents in advance the affirmation 
that the character of the First Cause is further manifested by 
the everywhere present evidence that these general laws are 
made to conspire by special adjustments to the accomplishment 
of ends evidently intended. This principle is illustrated by 
the mutual adjustments of the various provinces of nature, and 
especially by the vegetable and animal organisms, and the re- 
lations they involve, of organ to organism, of organism to in- 
stinct, and of single organisms and classes of organisms to 
each other and to their physical surroundings. In many cases 
the intention of these special adjustments is self-evident and 
undeniable, as in the case of the parts of the eye to the pur- 
pose of vision. In other cases it is more obscure and conject- 
ural. In the present condition of science we can understand 
only in part, but from the beginning the evidence of intel- 
ligent purpose has been transparent and overwhelming. A 
single sentence proves intelligence, although the context is 



OBJECTIONS TO THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 37 

undecipherable. But every advance of science discloses the 
same evidence over wider areas and in clearer light. 

8. State and answer the objections to the theistic inference from 
the evidences of specicd design. 

1st. Hume ("Dialogues on Natural Eeligion," Pt. VII., etc.,) 
argues that our conviction that adaptation implies design is 
due to experience and cannot go beyond it. That our judg- 
ment that natural organisms imply design in their cause is an 
inference from the analogy of human contrivance, and its effects. 
He argues further that this analogy is false because — (1.) The 
human worker is antecedently known to us as an intelligent 
contriver, while the author of nature is antecedently unknown, 
and the very object sought to be verified by the theistic infer- 
ence. (2.) The processes of nature are all unlike the processes 
by which man executes his contrivances, and the formation of 
the world, and the institution of the processes of nature are 
peculiar effects of the like of which we have no experience. 

We answer — (1.) The argument rests upon a false assump- 
tion of fact. The human contriver, the soul of our fellow-man, 
is not antecedently known to us, nor is ever in any way known 
except by the character of the works by which he manifests 
himself. And precisely in the same way and to the same ex- 
tent is the Author of nature known. (2.) It rests on a false 
assumption of principle. The analogy of human contrivances 
is not the ground of our conviction that order and adaptation 
imply intelligence. It is a universal and necessary judgment 
of reason that order and adaptation can only spring from an 
intelligent cause, or from accident, and. that the latter supposi- 
tion is absurd. 

2d. Some men of science, who have become habituated to the 
consideration of the universe as an absolute unit, all the pro- 
cesses of which are executed by invariable general laws (a 
mode of thought in which for centuries science was anticipated 
by Augustinian Theology), object that in inferring intention 
from the adjustment of parts in special groups or systems, the 
natural theologian had mistaken a part for a whole, and an 
incidental effect of a general law, resulting from special and 
temporary conditions, for the real end of the law itself. They 
hold that if even the First Cause of the universe were intelli- 
gent, it were infinitely absurd for men to presume to interpret 
his purpose from what we see of the special results of the 
working of laws working from infinite past time, through infi- 
nite space, and over an infinite system of conspiring parts. 

We answer — (1.) It is self-evident that the relations of the 
parts of a special whole conspiring to a special end may be 



38 THE BEING OF GOD. 

fully understood, while the relations of that special whole to 
the general whole may be entirely unknown, although strong 
light is thrown even on this side by reason and revelation. A 
single bone of an unknown species of animal gives undeniable 
evidence of special adaptation, and may even, as scientists justly 
claim, throw light beyond itself upon the constitution of that 
otherwise unknown whole to which it belonged. (2.) We con- 
fess that this criticism, although failing as to the argument 
from design, has force relatively to the mode in which that 
argument has often been conceived. The older natural theolo- 
gians did often to too great a degree abstract individual or- 
ganisms from the great dynamic whole of which they are 
products as well as parts. Dr. Flint (" Theism," p. 159) well 
distinguishes between the intrinsic, the extrinsic, and the ulti- 
mate ends of any special adjustment. Thus the intrinsic end 
of that special adjustment of parts called the eye is vision. Its 
extrinsic ends are the uses it serves to the animal it belongs 
to, and all the uses he serves to all he stands immediately or 
remotely related to. Its ultimate end is the end of the uni- 
verse itself. "Theism," p. 163 — "When we affirm, then, that 
final causes in the sense of intrinsic ends are in things, we 
affirm merely that things are systematic unities, the parts of 
which are definitely related to one another, and co-ordinated 
to a common issue ; and when we affirm that final causes in 
the sense of extrinsic ends are in things, we affirm merely that 
things are not isolated and independent systems, but systems 
definitely related to other systems, and so adjusted as to be 
parts or components of higher systems, and means to issues 
more comprehensive than their own." 

It is true indeed that a man can not discern the ultimate 
end of a part until he discerns the ultimate end of the whole, 
and that he can not discern all the extrinsic ends of any spe- 
cial system until he knows all its relations to all other special 
systems. Nevertheless, as a man who knows nothing of the 
relation of a given plant or animal to the flora or fauna of a 
continent, may be absolutely certain of the functions of the 
root or the claw in the economy of the plant or beast, so the 
manner in which all the parts which conspire to make a spe- 
cial whole are adapted to effect that end may be perfectly un- 
derstood, while we know nothing as yet of the extrinsic relation 
of that special whole to that Avhich is exterior to itself. 

3d. It has been claimed in recent times by a certain class 
of scientists that evidence for the existence of God afforded by 
the order and adaptation exhibited in the processes of nature 
has been very much weakened, if not absolutely invalidated, 
by the assumed probability of the alternative hypothesis of 



OBJECTIONS TO THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 39 

Evolution. There are many theories of Evolution, but the 
term in the general sense denotes the judgment that the state 
of the universe as a whole and in all its parts any one moment 
of time, has its cause in its state the immediately preceding 
moment, and that these changes have been brought about 
through the agency of powers inherent in nature, and that 
they may be traced back from moment to moment without 
any break of causal continuity through all past time. 

All possible theories of Evolution, considered in their rela- 
tion to theology, may be classified thus: (1.) Those which 
neither deny nor obscure the evidence which the order and 
adaptation observed in nature afford to the existence of God, 
and his immanence in and providential control of his works. 
(2) Those which, while recognizing God as the original source 
in the remote past, to which the origination and the primary 
adjustments of the universe are to be referred, yet deny his 
immanence and constant providential activity in his works. 
(3.) Those which professedly or virtually obscure or deny the 
evidence afforded by the order and adaptation of the universe 
for the existence and activity of God alike as Creator and as 
Providential Ruler. 

With the first class of Evolution theories the Natural Theo- 
logian has, of course, only the most friendly interest. 

As to the second class, which admits that a divine intelli- 
gence contrived and inaugurated the universe at the absolute 
beginning, yet deny that any such agent is immanent in the 
universe controlling its processes, we remark — (1.) That the 
point we have at present to establish is the eternal self-exist- 
ence of an intelligent First Cause, and not the mode of his 
relation to the universe. The latter question will be treated 
in subsequent chapters. (2.) It is far more philosophical, and 
more in accordance with a true interpretation of the scientific 
principle of continuity, to conceive of the First Cause as imma- 
nent in the universe, and as organically concurring with all 
unintelligent second causes in all processes exhibiting power 
or intelligence. This is recognized by that large majority of 
scientific men who are either orthodox Theists, or who refer all 
the phenomena of the physical universe to the dynamic ac- 
tion of the divine will. (3.) The evidence afforded by man's 
moral consciousness and history and by revelation, to the im- 
manence and effective agency of God in all his works, is un- 
answerable. 

As to the third class of Evolution theories, which do either 
professedly or virtually obscure or deny the evidence afforded 
by order or contrivance to an intelligent First Cause of the 
Universe, as for example the theory of Darwin as to the differ- 



40 THE BEING OF GOD. 

entiation of all organisms through accidental variations occurring 
through unlimited time, we remark — 

1st. Every such scheme, when it is proposed as an account 
of the existing universe, must furnish a probable explanation 
of all classes of facts. It is notorious that every theory of 
purely natural Evolution fails utterly to explain the following 
facts: (1.) The origination of life. It could not have existed 
in the fire-mist. It could not have been generated by that 
which has no life. The mature decision of science to-day 
(1878) is expressed in the old axiom omne vivum ex vivo. (2.) 
The origin of sensation. (3.) Also of intelligence and will. 
(4). Also of conscience. (5.) The establishment of distinct log- 
ically corrolated and persistent types of genera and species, 
maintained by the law of hybridity. (6.) The origin of man. 
Prof. Virchow of Berlin, in his recent address at the German 
Association of Naturalists and Physicians at Munich, says, 
"You are aware that I am now specially engaged in the study 
of anthropology ; but I am bound to declare that every positive 
advance which we have made in the province of prehistoric 
anthropology has actually removed us further from the proof 
of such connection (i. e., the descent of man from any lower 
type)." 

2d. But even if continuous evolution could be proved as a 
fact, the significance of the evidence of intelligent order and 
contrivance would not be in the least affected. It would only 
establish a method or system of means, but could in no degree 
alter the nature of the effect, nor the attributes of the real cause 
disclosed by them. (1.) The laws of abiogenesis, of reproduc- 
tion, of sexual differentiation and reproduction, of heredity, of 
variation, such as can evolve sensation, reason, conscience, and 
will out of atoms and mechanical energy, would all still remain 
to be accounted for. (2.) Laws are never causes, but always 
complicated modes of action resulting from the co-action of 
innumerable unconscious agents. Instead, therefore, of being 
explanations they are the very complex effects for which reason 
demands an intellectual cause. (3.) All physical laws result 
from the original properties of matter acting under the mutual 
condition of certain complicated adjustments. Change the ad- 
justments and the laws change. The laws which execute evo- 
lution, or rather into which the process of evolution is analyzed,, 
must be referred back to the original adjustments of the ma- 
terial elements of the fire-mist. These adjustments, in which 
all future order and life is by hypothesis latent, must have 
been caused by chance or intelligence. Huxley in his "Criti- 
cisms on Origin of Species," p. 330, founds the whole logic of 
Evolution on chance thus: It has been "demonstrated that an 



THE MORAL ARGUMENT. 41 

apparatus thoroughly well-adapted to a particular purpose, may 
be the result of a method of trial and error worked out by un- 
intelligent agents, as well as of the direct application of the 
means appropriate to that end by an intelligent agent." "Ac- 
cording to Teleology, each organism is like a rifle bullet fired 
straight at a mark; according to Darwin organisms are like 
grape-shot, of which one hits something and the rest fall wide." 
The modern scientific explanation of the processes of the uni- 
verse by physical causes alone, to the exclusion of mind, differs 
from the old long-exploded chance theory, only by the acci- 
dents (a) of the juggling use of the words "laws of nature," 
(J)) and the assumption that chance operating through indefi- 
nate duration can accomplish the work of intelligence. But as 
no man can believe that any amount of time will explain the 
form of flint knives and arrow heads, in the absence of human 
agents, or that any number of throws could cast a font of type 
into the order of letters in the plays of Shakespeare, so no man 
can rationally believe that the complicated and significantly 
intellectual order of the universe sprang from chance. (4) In 
artificial breeding man selects. In "natural selection" nature 
selects. Hence, if the results are the most careful adjustments 
to effect purpose, it follows that that characteristic must be 
stamped upon the organisms by nature, and hence nature itself 
must therefore be intelligently directed, either (a) by an intel- 
ligence immanent in her elements, or in her whole as organized, 
or (b) by the original adjustment of her machinery by an intel- 
ligent Creator. 

9. State the Moral Argument, or the Evidence afforded by the 
Moral Consciousness and History of mankind. 

The Cosmological argument led us to an eternal self-existent 
First Cause. The argument from the order and adaptation dis- 
covered in the processes of the universe revealed this great 
First Cause as possessing intelligence and will; that is, as a 
personal spirit. The moral or anthropological argument fur- 
nishes new data for inference, at once confirming the former 
conclusions as to the fact of the existence of a personal intelli- 
gent First Cause, and at the same time adding to the concep- 
tion the attributes of holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. 
The argument from design includes the argument from cause, 
and the argument from righteousness and benevolence includes 
both the arguments from cause and from design, and adds to 
them a new element of its own. 

This group of arguments may be stated thus : 
1st. Consciousness is the fundamental ground of all knowl- 
edge. It gives us immediately the knowledge of self as exist- 



42 THE BEING OF GOD. 

ing and as the subject of certain attributes, and the agent in 
certain forms of activity. These souls and all their attributes 
must be accounted for. They have not existed from eternity. 
They could not have been evolved out of material elements, 
because — (1.) Consciousness testifies to their unity, simplicity, 
and spirituality. (2.) The laws of reason and the moral sense 
can not be explained as the result of transformed sense impres- 
sions modified by association derived by heredity (Mill and 
Spencer) ; for, (a) they are universally the same, (b) incapable 
of analysis, (c) necessary, and (d) sovereign over all impulses. 
Therefore the human soul must have been created, and its Cre- 
ator must have attributes superior to his work. 

2d. Man is essentially and universally a religious being. 
The sense of absolute dependence and moral accountability is 
inherent in his nature, universal and necessary. Conscience 
always implies responsibility to a superior, in moral authority, 
and therefore in moral character. It is especially implied in 
the sense of guilt which accompanies every violation of con- 
science. God is manifested and recognized in conscience as a 
holy, righteous, just, and intelligent will; i, e., a holy personal 
spirit. 

3d. The adaptations of nature, as far as we can trace their 
relations to sentient beings, are characteristically beneficent, 
and evidence a general purpose to promote happiness, and to 
gratify a sense of beauty. This implies design, and design of 
a special esthetic and moral character, and proves that the First 
Cause is benevolent and a lover of beauty. 

4th. The entire history of the human race, as far as known, 
discloses a moral order and purpose, which cannot be explained 
by the intelligence or moral purpose of the human agents con- 
cerned, which discovers an all-embracing unity of plan, com- 
prehending all peoples and all centuries. The phenomena of 
social and national life, of ethnological distribution, of the de- 
velopment and diffusion of civilizations and religions can be 
explained only by the existence of a wise, righteous, and be- 
nevolent ruler and educator of mankind. 

10. State and ansiver the objections to the Moral Argument. 

These objections are founded — 1st. On the mechanical in- 
variability of natural laws, and their inexorable disregard of the 
welfare of sentient creatures. 2d. The sufferings of irrational 
animals. 3d. The prevalence of moral and physical evils among 
men. 4th. The unequal apportionment of providential favors, 
and the absence of all proportion between the measure of 
happiness allotted, and the respective moral characters of the 
recipients. 



OBJECTIONS TO MORAL ARGUMENT. 43 

These difficulties, more or less trying to the faith of all, are 
the real occasion in the great majority of instances, of skep- 
tical atheism. John Stewart Mill in his "Essay on Nature" 
("Three Essays on Religion") describes it as the characteristic 
of "Nature" ruthlessly to inflict suffering and death, and affirms 
that the cause of nature, if a personal will, must be a monster 
of cruelty and injustice. In his " Essay on Theism," Pt. ii., he 
argues that the attempt to maintain that the author of nature, 
such as we know it, is at once omniscient and omnipotent and 
absolutely just and benevolent is abominably immoral. That 
he can be excused of cruelty and injustice only on the plea of 
limited knowledge or power, or both. He sums up his con- 
clusion from the evidence thus: "A Being of great but limited 
power, how or by what limited we cannot even conjecture ; of 
great and perhaps unlimited intelligence, but perhaps also more 
narrowly limited than his power : who desires and pays some 
regard to the happiness of his creatures, but who seems to have 
other motives of action which he cares more for, and who can 
hardly be supposed to have created the universe for that pur- 
pose only." In his "Autobiography," ch. ii., he says of his fa- 
ther, James Mill, "I have heard him say, that the turning point 
of his mind on the subject was reading Butler's Analogy. That 
work, of which he always continued to speak with respect, kept 
him, as he said, for some considerable time, a believer in the 
divine authority of Christianity ; by proving to him, that what- 
ever are the difficulties of believing that the Old and New Tes- 
taments proceed from, or record the acts of, a perfectly wise 
and good being, the same and still greater difficulties stand in 
the way of the belief, that a being of such a character can have 
been the Maker of the universe. He considered Butler's argu- 
ment as conclusive against the only opponents for whom it 
was intended. Those who admit an omnipotent as well as 
perfectly just and benevolent Maker and Ruler of such a world 
as this, can say little against Christianity but what can with 
at least equal force be retorted against themselves. Finding, 
therefore, no halting place in Deism, he remained in a state of 
perplexity, until, doubtless after many struggles, he yielded to 
the conviction, that concerning the origin of things nothing 
whatever can be known." 

We answer — 1st. It is unquestionably true that God has 
not created the universe for the single purpose, or even for the 
chief purpose, of promoting the happiness of his creatures. Our 
reason and observation, and the Christian Scriptures, unite in 
revealing as far higher and more worthy ends of divine action 
the manifestation of his own glory, and the promotion by edu- 
cation and discipline of the highest excellence of his intelligent 



44 THE BEING OF GOD. 

moral creatures. It is evident that the operation of inexorable 
general laws, and the mystery and sufferings incident to this 
life, may be the most effective means to promote those ends. 
2d. The direct intention of all the organs with which sensi- 
tive creatures are endowed is evidently to promote their well- 
being; pain and misery are incidental. Even the sudden vio- 
lent deaths of irrational animals probably promote the largest 
possible amount of sentient happiness. 3d. Conscience has 
taught men in all ages that the sufferings incident to human 
life are the direct and deserved consequences of human sin, 
either penalties, or chastisements benevolently designed for 
our moral improvement. 4th. The origin of sin is a confessed 
mystery, relieved however by the consideration, that it results 
from the abuse of man's highest and most valuable endowment, 
responsible free agency, and by the fact revealed in the Chris- 
tian Scriptures that even sin will be divinely overruled to the 
fuller manifestation of the perfections of God, and to the higher 
excellence and the more perfect happiness of the intelligent 
creation. 5th. The inequalities of the allotments of providence, 
and the disproportion between the well-being and the moral 
characters of men in this life, results from the fact that it is 
not the scene of rewards and punishments, and that different 
characters and different destinies require a different educational 
discipline, and it points to future readjustments revealed in the 
Bible (Ps. lxxiii.). 6th. Neither the teleological nor the moral 
argument involves the assertion that with our present knowl- 
edge we are able to discern in the universe the evidences of 
either infinite or perfect wisdom or goodness. These are both 
indicated as matters of fact, and general characteristics of na- 
ture. But our discernment of both is necessarily limited by the 
imperfections of our knowledge. Even in the judgment of rea- 
son alone the infinite probability is that what appears to us 
anomalous, inconsistent either with perfect wisdom or perfect 
goodness, will be found, upon the attainment of more adequate 
information on our part, to illustrate those very perfections 
which we have been tempted to think they obscure. 

11. State the Scriptural Evidence. 

Since man is a finite and guilty and morally corrupt 
creature it is unavoidable that the self-manifestations of God 
in nature should be imperfectly apprehended by him. That 
supernatural revelation which God has disclosed through an 
historical process of special interventions in chronological suc- 
cessions, interpreted by a supernaturally endowed order of 
prophets, and recorded in the Christian Scriptures, supple- 
ments the light of nature, explains the mysteries of provi- 



THE A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 45 

dence, and furnishes ns with the principles of a true theodice. 
The God whom nature veils while it reveals him, stands before 
us unveiled in all the perfection of wisdom, holiness, and love 
in the person of Christ, He who hath seen Christ hath seen 
the Father. The truth of Theism is demonstrated in his per- 
son, and henceforth will never be held except by those who 
loyally acknowledge his Lordship over intellect and conscience 
and life. 

12. State the principle upon ichicli tJie A priori arguments for 
the existence of God rest, the value of the principle, and the pyrin- 
cipal forms in ivhich they have been presented. 

An a posteriori argument is one which logically ascends 
from facts of experience to causes, or principles. Thus by 
means of the preceding arguments we have been led from 
the facts of consciousness and of external nature to the knowl- 
edge of God as an intelligent and righteous personal spirit, 
the powerful, wise, and benevolent First Cause and Moral 
Governor. An a priori argument is one which proceeds from 
the necessary ideas of reason to the consequences necessarily 
deduced from them, or the truths necessarily involved in them. 

It is certain that the intuitions of necessary truth are the 
same in all men. They are not generalizations from experience, 
but are presupposed in all experience. They bear the stamp 
of universality and necessity. They have objective validity, 
not depending upon the subjective state of personal conscious- 
ness, nor depending upon the nature of things, but anterior 
and superior to all things. What then can be the ground of 
eternal, necessary, universal, unchangeable truth, unless it be 
an infinite, eternal, self-existent, unchangeable nature, of whose 
essence they are. 

We have seen that our reasons can rest only in a cause 
itself uncaused. An uncaused cause must be eternal, self-ex- 
istent, and unchangeable. We h,ave in our minds ideas and 
intuitions of infinity and perfection, as well as of eternity, self- 
existence, and immutability. "These, unless they are wholly 
delusive — which is w r hat we are unable to conceive — must be 
predicable of some being. The sole question is, Of what being? 
It must be of him who has been proved to be the First Cause 
of all things, the source of all the power, wisdom, and good- 
ness displayed in the universe. It can not be the universe 
itself, for that has been shown to be but an effect, to have 
before and behind it a Mind, a Person. It can not be our- 
selves, or any thing to which our senses can reach, seeing that 
we and they are finite, contingent, and imperfect. The author 
of the universe alone — the Father of our spirits, and the Giver 



46 THE BEING OF GOD. 

of every good and perfect gift — can be uncreated, and uncon- 
ditioned, infinite, and perfect. This completes the idea of God 
so far as it can be reached or formed by natural reason. And 
it gives consistency to the idea. The conclusions of the a pos- 
teriori arguments fail to satisfy either the mind or the heart 
until they are connected with and supplemented by, the intui- 
tion of the reason — infinity. The conception of any other than 
an infinite God — a God unlimited in all his perfections — is a 
self-contradictory conception which the intelligence refuses to 
entertain."— Dr. Flint, "Theism," p. 291. 

1. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109), in his 
" Monologium and Proslogiiim" states the argument thus: We 
have the idea of an infinitely perfect being. But real exist- 
ence is a necessary element of infinite perfection. Therefore 
an infinitely perfect being exists, otherwise the infinitely per- 
fect as we conceive it would lack an essential element of 
perfection. 2. Des Cartes (1596-1650) in his " Meditationes de 
prima philosophia" prop. 2, p. 89, states it thus: The idea of an 
infinitely perfect being which we possess could not have orig- 
inated in a finite source, and therefore must have been commu- 
nicated to us by an infinitely perfect being. He also in other 
connections claims that this idea represents an objective reality, 
because (1) it is pre-eminently clear, and ideas carry convic- 
tion of correspondence to truth in proportion to their clearness, 
and (2) it is necessary. 3. Dr. Samuel Clarke, in 1705, published 
his "Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God." He 
argues that time and' space are infinite and necessarily existent. 
But they are not substances. Therefore there must exist an 
eternal infinite substance of which they are properties. 

The Principal Anti-Theistic Theories. 
13. What is Atheism ? 

Atheism, according to its etymology, signifies a denial of 
the being of God. It was applied by the ancient Greeks to 
Socrates and other philosophers, to indicate that they failed to 
conform to the popular religion. In the same sense it was 
applied to the early Christians. Since the usage of the term 
Theism has been definitely fixed in all modern languages, athe- 
ism necessarily stands for the denial of the existence of a per- 
sonal Creator and Moral Governor. Notwithstanding that the 
belief in a personal God is the result of a spontaneous recog- 
nition of God as manifesting himself in consciousness and the 
works of nature, atheism is still possible as an abnormal state 
of consciousness induced by sophistical speculation or by the 
indulgence of sinful passions, precisely as subjective idealism is 



ANTI-THEISTIC THEORIES. 47 

possible. It exists in the following forms: 1. Practical, 2. Spec- 
ulative. Again Speculative Atheism may be (1) Dogmatic, as 
when the conclusion is reached either (a) that God does not 
exist, or (b) that the human faculties are positively incapable 
of ascertaining or of verifying his existence (e. g., Herbert 
Spencer, "First Principles," pt. 1). (2.) Skeptical, as when the 
existence is simply doubted, and the conclusiveness of the evi- 
dence generally relied upon is denied. (3.) Virtual, as when 
(a.) principles are maintained essentially inconsistent with the 
existence of God, or with the possibility of our knowledge 
of him : e. g., by materialists, positivists, absolute idealists. 
(b.) When some of the essential attributes of the divine nature 
are denied, as by Pantheists, and by J. S. Mill in his u Essays 
on Religion." (c.) When explanations of the universe are given 
which exclude (a 1 ) the agency of an intelligent Creator and 
Governor, (b 1 ) the moral government of God, and the moral 
freedom of man, e. g., the theories of Darwin and Spencer, 
and Necessitarians generally. See Ulrici, "God and Nature" 
and "Review of Strauss"; Strauss, "Old and New"; Buchanan, 
"Modern Atheism"; Tulloch, "Theism"; Flint, "Theism." 

14. What is Dualism ? 

Dualism, in philosophy the opposite of Monism, is the doc- 
trine that there are two generically distinct essences, Matter 
and Spirit in the universe. In this sense the common doctrine 
of Christendom is dualistic. All the ancient pagan philosophers 
held the eternal independent existence of matter, and conse- 
quently all among them who were also Theists were strictly 
cosmological dualists. The religion of Zoroaster was a my- 
thological dualism designed to account for the existence of 
evil. Ormuzd and Ahriman, the personal principles of good 
and evil, sprang from a supreme abstract divinity, Akerenes. 
Some of the sects of this religion held dualism in its absolute 
form, and referred all evil to vXrj, self-existent matter. This 
principle dominated among the various spurious Christian 
Gnostic sects in the second century, and in the system of 
Manes in the third century, and its prevalence in the oriental 
world is manifested in the ascetic tendency of the early Chris- 
tian Church. See J. F. Clarke, "Ten Religions"; Hardwicke, 
"Christ and other Masters"; Neander's "Church History"; 
Pressense, " Early Years of Christianity"; Tennemann, "Man- 
ual Hist. Philos." 

15. What is Polytheism ? 

Polytheism (ito\v<; and 0«o?) distributes the perfections and 
functions of the infinite God among many limited gods. It 



48 THE BEING OF GOD. 

sprang out of the nature- worship represented in the earliest 
Hindu Veds, so soon and so generally supplanting primitive 
monotheism. At first, as it long remained in Chaldea and 
Arabia, it consisted in the worship of elements, especially of 
the stars and of fire. Subsequently it took special forms from 
the traditions, the genius, and the relative civilizations of each 
nationality. Among the rudest savages it sank to Fetichism 
as in western and central Africa. Among the Greeks it was 
made the vehicle for the expression of their refined humanita- 
rianism in the apotheosis of heroic men rather than the revela- 
tion of incarnate gods. In India, springing from a pantheistic 
philosophy, it has been carried to the most extravagant ex- 
treme, both in respect to the number, and the character of its 
deities. Whenever polytheism has been connected with spec- 
ulation it appears as the exoteric counterpart of pantheism. 
Carlyle, " Hero-worship"; Max Midler, " Compar. Myth.," in 
Oxford Essays; Prof. Tyler, "Theology of Greek Poets." 

16. What is Deism? 

Deism, from deus, although etymologically synonymous with 
theism, from Qe6s, has been distinguished from it since the mid- 
dle of the sixteenth century, and designates a system admitting 
the existence of a personal Creator, but denying his controlling 
presence in the world, his immediate moral government, and 
all supernatural intervention and revelation. The movement 
began with the English Deists, Lord Herbert of Cherbury 
(1581-1648), Hobbes (fl680), Shaftesbury, Bolingbroke (1678- 
1751), Thomas Paine (fl809), etc. It passed over to France 
and was represented by Voltaire and the Encyclopaedists. It 
passed over into Germany and was represented by Lessing and 
Reimarus { u Wolfenbuttel Fragmentist" ), and invading Church 
and Theology, it was essentially represented by the old school 
of naturalistic rationalists, who admitted with it a low and 
inconsequent form of Socinianism, e. g., Eichhorn (1752-1827), 
Paulus (1761-1851), "Wegscheider (1771-1848). It has been 
represented in America by the late Theodore Parker, and the 
extreme left of the party known as "Liberal Christians." In 
Germany mere deistical naturalism gave way to pantheism, 
as the latter has recently given way to materialistic atheism, 
e.g., Strauss. See Leland, "View of Deistical Writers"; Van 
Mildert's "Boyle Lectures"; Farrar, "Critical Hist, of Free- 
thought"; Dorner, "Hist. Protest. Theology"; Hurst, "Hist, of 
Rationalism"; Butler's "Analogy." 

17. What is Idealism? 

" Idealism is the doctrine that in external perceptions the 



ANTI-THEISTIC THEORIES. 49 

objects immediately known are ideas. It has been held under 
various forms." — See Hamilton's " Keid," Note C. 

"Some of the phases of modern Idealism among the Ger- 
mans, may be seen in the following passage from Lewes : — ' I 
see a tree. The common psychologists tell me that there are 
three things implied in this one fact of vision, viz. : a tree, an 
image of that tree, and a mind that apprehends that image. 
Fichte tells me that it is I. alone who exist. The tree and the 
image of it are one thing, and that is a modification of my 
mind. This is subjective idealism. Schelling tells me that both 
the tree and my ego (or self), are existences equally real or 
ideal; but they are nothing less than manifestations of the 
absolute, the infinite, or unconditioned. This is objective ideal- 
ism. But Hegel tells me that all these explanations are false. 
The only thing really existing (in this one fact of vision) is 
the idea, the relation. The ego and the tree are but two terms 
of the relation, and owe their reality to it. This is absolute 
idealism. According to this, there is neither mind nor matter, 
heaven or earth, God or man.' The doctrine opposed to Ideal- 
ism is Eealism." — "Vocabulary of the Philosophical Sciences," 
by C. P. Krauth, D.D., 1878. 

18. What is Materialism ? 

As soon as we begin to reflect we become conscious of the 
presence of two everywhere interlaced, but always distinct 
classes of phenomena — of thought, feeling, will on the one 
hand, and of extension, inertia, etc., on the other. Analyze 
these as we may, we never can resolve the one into the other. 
The one class we come to know through consciousness, the 
other through sensation, and we know the one as directly and 
as certainly as the other; and as we can never resolve either 
into the other, we refer the one class to a substance called 
spirit, and the other class to a substance called matter. 

Materialists are a set of superficial philosophers in whom 
the moral consciousness is not vivid, and who have formed the 
habit of exclusively directing attention to the objects of the 
senses, and explaining physical phenomena by mechanical con- 
ceptions. Hence they fall into the fundamental error of affirm- 
ing — (1.) That there is but one substance, or rather that all the 
phenomena of the universe can be explained in terms of atoms 
and force. (2.) That intelligence, feeling, conscience, volition, 
etc., are only properties of matter, or functions of material 
organization, or modifications of convertible energy. Intelli- 
gence did not precede and effect order and organization, but 
order and organization developed by laws inherent in matter 
develop intelligence. The German Darwinists style that system 



50 THE BEING OF GOD. 

the "mechanico-causal" development of the universe; Huxley 
says life, and hence organization results from the "molecular 
mechanics of the protoplasm." 

We answer — 1st. This is no recondite theory, as some pre- 
tend, concerning substance. If the phenomena of conscious- 
ness are resolved into modifications of matter and force, i. e., 
ultimately into some mode of motion, then all ultimate and 
necessary truth is impossible, duty has no absolute obligation, 
conscience is a lie, consciousness a delusion, and freedom of 
will absurd. All truth and duty, all honor and hope, all mo- 
rality and religion, would be dissolved. 

2d. The theory is one-sided and unwarrantable. In fact our 
knowledge of the soul and of its intuitions and powers are 
more direct and clear than the scientist's knowledge of matter. 
What does he know of the real nature of the atom, of force, 
of gravity, etc. 

3d. The explanation of matter by mind, of force and order 
by intelligence and will, is rational. But the explanation of 
the phenomena of intelligence, will, and consciousness as modes 
of matter or force is absurd. The reason can rest in the one 
and can not in the other. The soul of man is known to be an 
absolute cause — matter is known not to be, to be but the vehi- 
cle of force, and force to be in a process of dispersion. Intelli- 
gence is known to be the cause of order and organization, 
organization can not be conceived to be the cause of intelligence. 

Tyndal ("Athenseum" for August 29, 1868) says: "The 
passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding 
facts of consciousness is unthinkable. Granted that a definite 
thought and a definite molecular action in the brain occur 
simultaneously: we do not possess the intellectual organ, nor 
apparently any rudiment of the organ, which would enable us 
to pass, by a process of reasoning, from the one phenomenon to 
the other. ... In affirming that the growth of the body 
is mechanical, and that thought as exercised by us has its 
correlative in the physics of the brain, I think the position of 
the Materialist is stated as far as that position is a tenable one. 
I think the Materialist will be able finally to maintain this posi- 
tion against all attacks ; but I do not think as the human mind 
is at present constituted, that he can pass beyond it. I do not 
think he is entitled to say that his molecular grouping and 
his molecular motions explain every thing. In reality they 
explain nothing." 

19. What is Pantheism? 

Pantheism (nav 6«os) is absolute monism, maintaining that 
the entire phenomenal universe is the everchanging existence- 



ANTI-THEISTIC THEORIES. 51 

form of the olie single universal substance, which is God. Thus 
God is all, and all is God. God is to ov, absolute being, of 
which every finite thing is a differentiated and transient form. 
This doctrine is, of course, capable of assuming very various 
forms. (1.) The one-substance pantheism of Spinoza. He held 
that God is the one absolute substance of all things, possessing 
two attributes, thought and extension, from which respectively 
the physical and intellectual worlds proceed by an eternal, nec- 
essary, and unconscious evolution. (2.) The material panthe- 
ism of Strauss, "Old and New Faith." (3.) The idealistic pan- 
theism of Schelling, maintaining the absolute identity of subject 
and object; and of Hegel, maintaining the absolute identity of 
thought and existence as determinations of the one absolute 
Spirit. 

It is obvious that pantheism in all its forms must either 
deny the moral personality of God, or that of man, or both. 
Logically it renders both impossible. God comes to self-con- 
sciousness only in man; the consciousness of free personal self- 
determination in man is a delusion; moral responsibility is a 
prejudice ; the supernatural is impossible and religion is super- 
stition. Yet such is the flexibility of the system, that in one 
form it puts on a mystical guise, representing God as the all- 
person absorbing the world into himself, and in the opposite 
form it puts on a purely naturalistic guise, representing the 
world as absorbing God, and the human race in its ever-cul- 
minating development the only object of reverence or devotion. 
The same Spinoza who was declared by Pascal and Bossuet to 
be an atheist, is represented by Jacobi and Schleiermacher to 
be the most devout of mystics. The intense individuality of 
the material science of this century has reacted powerfully on 
pantheism, substituting materialism for idealism, retiring God, 
and elevating man, as is seen in the recent degradation of pan- 
theism into atheism in the case of Feuerbach and Strauss, etc. 

The most ancient, persistent, and prevalent pantheism of 
the world's history is that of India. As a religion it has 
moulded the character, customs, and mythologies of the people 
for 4,000 years. As a philosophy it has appeared in three prin- 
cipal forms — the Sanckhya, the Nyaya, and the Vedanta. Pan- 
theistic modes of thought more or less underlay all forms of 
Greek philosophv, and especiallv the Neo- Platonic school of 
Plotinus (f205-270), Porphyry (233-305), and Jamblicus (f333). 
It reappeared in John Scotus Erigena (b. 800), and with the Xeo- 
Platonists of the Renaissance — e. (/., Giordano Bruno ("JT600). 
Modern pantheism began with Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677), 
and closes with the disciples of Schelling and Hegel. 

Besides pure pantheism there has existed an infinite variety 



52 THE BEING OF GOD. 

of impure forms of virtual pantheism. This is true of all sys- 
tems that affirm the impersonality of the infinite and absolute, 
and which resolve all the divine attributes into modes of caus- 
ality. The same is true of all systems which represent provi- 
dential preservation as a continual creation, deny the real effi- 
ciency of second causes, and make God the only agent in the 
universe, e. g., Edwards on "Original Sin," pt. 4, ch. 3, and 
Emmons. Under the same general category falls the fanciful 
doctrine of Emanations, which was the chief feature of Oriental 
Theosophies, and the Hylozoism of Averroes (fll98), which sup- 
poses the co-eternity of matter and of an unconscious plastic 
ardma mundi. See Hunt, "Essay on Pantheism," London, 1866; 
Saisset, "Modern Pantheism," Edinburgh, 1863; Cousin, "His- 
tory of Modern Philosophy"; Bitter's "Hist. Ancient Philos."; 
Buchanan, "Faith in God," etc.; Dollinger, "Gentile and Jew," 
London, 1863 ; Max Miiller, " Hist. Anc. Sancrit Lit." 



CHAPTER III. 

THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGY. 

A general definition of Theology, Chap. I., Ques. 1. 

1. What are the two great departments into which Theology is 
divided ? 

1st. Natural Theology, which is the science which proposes 
to itself these two questions: (1.) Can the real objective exist- 
ence of God as a personal extramundane Spirit be established 
by satisfactory evidence? (2.) What may be legitimately as- 
certained concerning the true nature of God in himself, and 
concerning his relations to the universe, and especially to 
man, by the light of nature alone. A distinction here must 
be carefully observed between that knowledge of God which 
can be reached from the evidences afforded in his works by 
the powers of human reason independently of all suggestions 
afforded by supernatural revelation, e. g., the theology of Plato 
and Cicero; and on the other hand, that knowledge of God 
which the human faculties are now able to deduce from the 
phenomena of nature under the borrowed, if unacknowledged, 
light of a supernatural revelation, e. g., the theology of Modern 
nationalists. 

2d. Kevealed Theology is that science which, Natural Theol- 
ogy presupposed, comprehends as its province all that has been 
revealed to us concerning God and his relation to the universe, 
and especially to mankind, through supernatural channels. 

2. What extreme views have been entertained as to the possi- 
bility and validity of Natural, and as distinguished from Revealed 
Theology ? 

1st. That of Deists or naturalistic Theists, who deny either 
the possibility or the historical fact of a supernatural revela- 
tion, and maintain that Natural Theology discovers all that it 
is either possible or necessary for man now to know about God, 
or his relation to us. Many German supernaturalistic ration- 



54 THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGY. 

alists, while they admit the historical fact of a supernatural 
revelation, hold that its only office is to enforce and illustrate 
the truths already given in Natural Religion, which are suffi- 
cient in themselves, and need reinforcement only because they 
are not sufficiently attended to by men. 

This is disproved below, Ques. 7-10. 

2d. The opposite extreme has been held by some Christians, 
that Natural Theology has no real existence ; but that we are in- 
debted to supernatural revelation for our first valid information 
that God exists. This is disproved — (1.) By the testimony of 
Scripture, Rom. i. 20-24, and ii. 14, 15, etc. (2.) By the testi- 
mony of experience, e. g., the knowledge of God attained by 
the more eminent heathen philosophers, however imperfect. 
(3.) The validity of the Theistic inference from the phenomena 
of consciousness and of the external world has been vindicated 
in Chapt. II. (4.) It is self-evident that some knowledge of 
God is logically presupposed in the recognition of a supernatu- 
ral revelation as coming from him. 

3. State the principal answers given to the question, " What is 
the Source or Standard of Knowledge in Theology ? " 

1st. The Theory of Schleiermacher and the Transcendent- 
al school. He was preacher and professor in Halle and Berlin 
from 1796 to 1834, and was the author of the "Mediation 
Theology," and inaugurated the movement by his " Discourses 
on Religion, addressed to the Educated among its Despisers," 
1799, and his " Christian Faith on the Principles of the Evan- 
gelical Church," 1821. 

He considered religion to be a form of feeling, and to be 
grounded on our constitutional God-consciousness, which con- 
sists, on the intellectual side, of an intuition of God, and on 
the emotional side, of a feeling of absolute dependence. Chris- 
tianity consists of that specific form of this constitutional 
religious consciousness which was generated in the bosom of 
his disciples by the God-man Christ. And as human conscious- 
ness in general is generated in every individual by his social 
relations, so Christian consciousness is generated in communion 
with that society (the Church) which Christ founded and of 
which he is the centre of life. And as the common intuitions 
of men are the last appeal in all questions of natural knowledge, 
so the common Christian consciousness of the Church is the 
last appeal in all questions of Christian faith, which in its 
totality is the rule of Faith, and not the Scriptures. 

Objection. (1.) This view is inconsistent with the nature of 
Christianity, which as a remedial scheme rests upon certain 
historical facts, which must be known in order to be effective, 



DIFFERENT ANSWERS CONSIDERED. 55 

and which can be authoritatively made known only by means of 
a supernatural revelation. No form of intuition can reach them. 
(2.) It is inconsistent with the uniform conviction of Christians' 
that Christianity is a system of divinely revealed facts and 
principles. (3.) It affords no criterion of truth. It must re- 
gard all the doctrines of the various Church parties as recon- 
cilable variations of the same fundamental truth. (4.) It is 
inconsistent with the claims of Scripture as the word of God, 
and with its explicit teaching, as to the nature of revelation 
communicating objective truth, and as to the necessity of the 
knowledge of the truth so conveyed in order to salvation. 

2d. The Mystic Doctrine of the Inner Light, or the General 
Inspiration of all Men, or at least all Christians, as held by 
the Quakers. This view differs from Rationalism because it 
makes the feelings rather than the understanding the organ of 
religious truth, and because it regards the "inward light" as 
the testimony of God's Spirit to and within the human spirit. 
It differs from our doctrine of Inspiration because it is the 
practical guidance and illumination of the divine Spirit in the 
hearts of all believing' men, and not confined to the official 
Founders and First Teachers of the Church. It differs from 
spiritual illumination, which we believe to be experienced by 
all truly regenerated believers only, because (1) it leads to 
the knowledge of truth independently of its revelation in 
Scripture, and (2) it belongs to all men who are willing to 
attend to and obey it. 

Objection. (1.) This view contradicts Scripture, (a.) Which 
never promises an illumination which will carry men beyond, 
or make men independent of its own teaching, (b.) They teach 
the absolute necessity for salvation of the objective revelation 
given in the written word (Rom. xi. 14-18). (2.) Is disproved 
by experience, which (a) testifies that the "inner light" af- 
fords no criterion to determine the truth of different doctrines, 
(b) that it has never availed to lead any individual or commu- 
nity to the knowledge of saving truth independently of the 
objective revelation, and (c) that it has always led to an 
irreverent depreciation of the word, and in the long run to 
disorder and confusion. 

III. The Theory of an Inspired Church, that is inspired in 
the persons, or at least the official teaching, of its chief pas- 
tors and teachers. This view is refuted Chapter V. 

IV. The common postulate of all Rationalists, that Reason 
is the source and measure of all our knowledge of God. This 
view is considered and refuted below, Questions 7-10. 

V. The true and Protestant Doctrine. That the Scriptures 
of the Old and New Testaments, being given by the Inspiration 



56 THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGY. 

of God, are his words to us, and an infallible and authoritative 
Kule of Faith and Practice, and to the exclusion of all others, 
the one source and standard of Christian Theology. 

4. What is the precise sense in ivhich the term "Reason" is 
used by those who contrast it to Faith as the source of Religious 
Knoivledge ? 

The term "Eeason" is used in various senses by different 
classes of Rationalists. By some it is used as the organ of the 
higher institutions apprehending necessary and ultimate truth, 
Such is the God-consciousness of Schleiermacher, and the intui- 
tion of the infinite of Schelling and Cousin, and such, in effect, 
are the moral intuitional feelings of Newman and Parker. By 
others "Reason" stands for the understanding, or logical 
faculty of observing, judging, and drawing inferences in the 
sphere of experience. Hence it comprehends as its ground 
and standard the mass of the accredited knowledge and opinion 
of the day. Practically all men designate by the respectable 
name of reason their own permanent habit and attitude of 
mind, with the organized mass of knowledge, opinion, and 
prejudice with which their minds are full. That is said to 
stand to reason which is congruous to that habit, or to that 
mass of accepted opinion. 

In this controversy, however, we designate by the term 
"Reason" man's entire natural faculty of ascertaining the 
truth, including intuitions, understanding, imagination, affec- 
tions and emotions, acting under natural conditions, and inde- 
pendently of supernatural assistance. 

5. What is Rationalism ? 

A " Naturalist " is one who holds that Nature is a complete 
self-contained, self-supported sphere in itself, and hence denies 
either the reality of the supernatural, or that it can be an 
object of human knowledge; and hence denies the necessity, 
or possibility, or actual fact, of a supernatural revelation. The 
term "Rationalist" is more general. It includes the Naturalist 
of every grade, and also all those who while admitting the fact 
of a divine revelation, yet maintain that revelation, its doc- 
trines and records, are all to be measured and accredited or 
rejected and interpreted by human reason as ultimate arbiter. 
With the Rationalists Reason is the ultimate ground and meas- 
ure of faith. 

In its historical sense Rationalism, as a mode of freethink- 
ing springing up in the midst of the Christian Church itself, 
giving rise to an illegitimate use of reason in the interpretation 
of the Scriptures and their doctrines, has always been active in 



RA TIONALISM. 57 

some form, and in one degree or another, and has been signally- 
manifest in a class of the Mediaeval schoolmen, and in the disci- 
ples of Socinus. Its modern and most extreme form originated 
in Germany in the middle of the last century. The canses to 
which it is to be attributed were — (a.) The low state of religion 
pervading all Protestant countries, (b.) The influence of the 
formal philosophy and dogmatism of Wolf, the disciple of Leib- 
nitz, (c.) The influence of the English Deists, (d) The influ- 
ence of the French infidels collected at the court of Frederick the 
Great of Prussia. The father of critical rationalism was Sem- 
ler, Prof, at Halle (b. 1725, and d. 1791). Although personally 
devout, he arbitrarily examined the canonicity of the books of 
Scripture, neglecting historical evidence, and substituting his 
own subjective sense of fitness. He introduced the principle of 
" accommodation " into Biblical interpretation, holding that be- 
sides much positive truth, Christ and his apostles taught many 
things in "accommodation" to the ideas prevailing among 
their contemporaries. — Hurst, "History of Rationalism." 

This tendency, afterwards greatly aggravated through the 
influence of Lessing and Reimarus the Wolfenbiittel Fragment- 
ist, penetrated the mass of German theological literature, and 
culminated in the last years of the eighteenth and first years 
of the nineteenth century. Among its principal representa- 
tives were Bretschneider, Eichhorn, and Paulus in Biblical, 
and Wegscheider in dogmatic theology. The two last espe- 
cially, while admitting the fact that Christianity is a supernat- 
ural revelation, yet maintained that it is merely a republication 
of the elements of natural religion, and that Eeason is the 
supreme arbiter as to what books are to be received as ca- 
nonical, and as to what they mean. Miracles were regarded 
as unworthy of belief. The narratives of miracles recorded in 
the Scriptures were referred to the ignorance, superstition, or 
partiality of the writers, and the miracles themselves were 
referred to natural causes. Jesus was regarded as a good 
man, and original Christianity as a sort of philosophical So- 
cinianism. This is what has been historically designated in 
Germany by the title Nationalism, and more specifically as the 
Rationalismus Vulgaris, the old, or common-sense Rationalism. 

After the rise of the philosophies of Fichte, Schelling and 
Hegel, a new impulse was given to theological speculation, 
and to Biblical interpretation. This gave rise on the one hand 
to a reaction towards orthodoxy through the " Mediation Theo- 
logy " of Schleiermacher, and on the other to a new school of 
Transcendental Rationalism, the basis of which is a pantheistic 
mode of thought. It necessarily denies the supernatural, and 
postulates the fundamental principle that miracles are impos- 



58 THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGY. 

sible. This school, whose head-quarters was Tubingen, has been 
most prominently represented by Christian Baur with his Ten- 
dency Theory, Strauss with his Mythical theory, and Eenan 
with his Legendary theory, to account for the origin of the 
New Testament writings, while denying their historical basis 
of fact. 

This tendency, in various degrees of force, is manifested in 
the state of theological opinion in England and America, prin- 
cipally in the School of Coleridge, Maurice, Stanley, Jowett 
and Williams, and the Broad Church party generally ; in Scot- 
land in Tulloch ; in America by the late Theodore Parker, the 
school of liberal Christians, and in the general relaxation of 
faith discernible on every side. 

" German Kationalism," Hagenbach, Clarke Edinburg Li- 
brary; "History of German Protestantism," Kahnis, Clarke Ed. 
Lib.; "Critical History of Free Thought," A. S. Farrar, New 
York, D. Appleton & Co. ; " Germany, its Universities, Theo- 
logy, and Religion," Philip Schaff, D.D. ; "History of Rational- 
ism," President Hurst, C. Scribner, New York. 

6. Into what two classes may all the argumentative grounds of 
opposition to historical Christianity be grouped? 

1st. A priori grounds. These rest upon a false view of the 
being and nature of God, and of his relation to the world. 
Thus the Positivist, who confines man's knowledge to Phe- 
nomena, and their laws of co-existence and sequence; the Deist, 
who denies the immanence of God in his works, and denies or 
renders remote and obscure his relation to us as Moral Governor, 
and spiritual Father; and the Pantheist, who denies his person- 
ality; and the scientific naturalist, who sees in nature only the 
operation of invariable self-executing physical laws ; — must all 
alike deny the possibility and credibility of miracles, must 
resolve inspiration into genius, and in some way or other 
explain away the Scriptures, as historical records of fact. This 
class of questions has been discussed above, Chapter II. 

2d. Historical and Critical grounds. These all rest on the 
assumed defect in the historical evidence for the genuineness 
and authenticity of the several books of the canon, and in the 
alleged discrepancies, and historical and scientific inaccuracies, 
found in Scripture. This class of questions must be met in the 
departments of Biblical Introduction, and Exegesis. 

7. State the grounds wpon which it is evident that Reason is 
not the ultimate source and measure of religious ideas. 

These are in general three: (1.) A priori. Reason, consid- 



A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION NECESSARY. 59 

ering man's present condition of ignorance, moral degradation, 
and guilt, has no qualities which render it competent to attain 
either (a) certainty or (b) sufficient information for man's prac- 
tical guidance, as to God's existence, or character, or relation 
to us, or purposes with regard to us. (2.) From universal ex- 
perience; unassisted reason has never availed for these ends, 
but when unduly relied upon has always led men, in spite of a 
neglected revelation, to skepticism and confusion. (3.) As a 
matter of fact an infallible record of a supernatural revelation 
has been given, which conveys, when interpreted with the illu- 
minating assistance of the Holy Spirit, information, the knowl- 
edge of which is essential to salvation, which reason could by 
no means have anticipated. 

To establish this argument the following points must be 
separately established in their order: 

1st. A supernatural revelation is necessary for man in his 
present condition. 

2d. A supernatural revelation is possible alike d parte Dei 
and d parte hominis. 

3d. From what Natural Theology reveals to us of the Attri- 
butes of God, of his relations to men, and of our moral con- 
dition, a supernatural revelation is antecedently probable. 

4th. It is an historical fact that Christianity is such a super- 
natural revelation. 

5th. It is also an historical fact that the present Canon of 
the Old and New Testaments consist only of and contain all 
the extant authentic and genuine records of that revelation. 

6th. That the books constituting this canon were super- 
naturally inspired, so as to be constituted the word of God, 
and an infallible and authoritative rule of faith and practice 
for men. 

8. Prove that a supernatural revelation is necessary for men 
in their present condition. 

1st. Reason itself teaches — (1) that as a matter of fact man's 
moral nature is disordered, and (2) his relations to God dis- 
turbed by guilt and alienation. Reason is capable of discov- 
ering the fact of sin, but makes no suggestions as to its remedy. 
We can determine a priori God's determination to punish sin, 
because that as a matter of Justice rests on his unchangeable 
and necessary nature, but can so determine nothing with respect 
to his disposition to provide, or to allow a remedy, because that, 
as a matter of grace, rests on his simple volition. 

2d. A spontaneous religious yearning, natural and universal, 
for a divine self-revelation and intervention on the part of God, 
and manifest in all human history, proves its necessity. 



60 THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGY. 

3d. Reason has never in the case of any historical commu- 
nity availed to lead men to certainty, to satisfy their wants, or 
to rule their lives. 

4th. Rationalism is strong only for attack and destruction. 
It has never availed in any considerable degree in the way of 
positive construction. No two prominent Rationalists agree as 
to what the positive and certain results of the teaching of rea- 
son are. 

9. Prove that a supernatural revelation is possible both a parte 
Dei, and a parte hominis. 

As to its being possible on God's side, if Theism be true, if 
God be an infinite extramundane person, who yet controls the 
operation of the laws he has ordained as his own methods, and 
has subordinated the physical system to the higher interests of 
his moral government — then obviously to limit him as to the 
manner, character, or extent of his self-manifestations to his 
creatures is transcendently absurd. All the philosophical pre- 
sumptions, which render a supernatural revelation on the part 
of God impossible, are based on Deistic, Materialistic, or Pan- 
theistic principles. We have exhibited the argument for The- 
ism in Chapter II. 

As to its being possible on man's side, it has been argued 
by modern transcendental rationalists that the communication 
of new truth by means of a "book revelation" is impossible. 
That words are conventional signs which have power to excite 
in the mind only those ideas which, having been previously 
apprehended, have been conventionally associated with those 
words. 

We answer — 1st. We admit that simple ultimate ideas 
which admit of no analysis, must in the first instance be appre- 
hended by an appropriate organ in an act of spontaneous intu- 
ition. No man can attain the idea of color except through the 
act of his own eyes, nor the idea of right except by an intuitive 
act of his own moral sense. But, 2d, the Christian revelation 
involves no new simple ultimate ideas incapable of analysis. 
They presuppose and involve the matter of all such natural 
intuitions, and they excite the rational and moral intuitions 
to a more active and normal exercise by association with new 
aspects of our divine relations, but for the most part they nar- 
rate objective and concrete facts, they explain the application 
of intuitive principles to our actual historical condition and 
relations; they state the purposes, requirements, and promises 
of God. But, 3d, even new simple ideas may be excited in the 
mind by means of a supernatural inward spiritual illumination 
acting on the minds of the subject of religious experience. The 



A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION PROBABLE. 61 

work of the Holy Spirit accompanying the written word com- 
pletes the revelation. An experienced Christian, under the 
teaching of the Holy Spirit through the word, has as clear and 
certain a knowledge of the matter involved in his new expe- 
rience, as he has of the matter of his perceptions through his 
bodily senses. 

10. Show from the data of Natural Theology that in the pres- 
ent state of human nature a supernatural revelation is antecedently 
probable. 

As shown in Chapt. II., Natural Theology ascertains for us 
an infinite, eternal, wise, and absolutely righteous and benevo- 
lent personal God. It ascertains also that man created in the 
divine image is morally corrupt and judicially condemned. It 
reveals to us man needing divine help, yearning and hoping 
for it, and therefore not incapable of it, as are the finally lost 
demons. Therefore all the perfections of God, and all the mis- 
eries of men, lead to the rational hope that at some time and in 
some way God may be graciously disposed to intervene super- 
naturally for man's help, and reveal his character and purposes 
more fully for man's guidance. 

11. How may it be proved that it is an historical fact that Chris- 
tianity is such a supernatural revelation? 

The reader must here be referred to the many and excellent 
treatises on the Evidences of Christianity. 

Paley's, Chalmers', Erskine's, and Alexander's works on the 
Evidences; A. S. Farrar's "Critical History of Free Thought"; 
Hopkins's "Evidences of Christianity"; Barnes's "Evidences of 
Christianity in the Nineteenth Century"; G. Wardlaw's "Lead- 
ing Evidences of Christianity"; Hetnerington's "Apologetics 
of the Christian Faith " ; Leathes's " Grounds of Christian 
Hope"; Eow's " Supernatural in the New Testament"; Eogers's 
" Superhuman Origin of the Bible " ; Christlieb's " Modern 
Doubt and Christian Belief"; Eawlinson's "Historical Evi- 
dence of the Truth of the Scripture Kecords"; Wace's "Chris- 
tianity and Morality"; Titcomb's "Cautions for Doubters"; 
Pearson's "Prize Essay on Infidelity"; F. W. Farrar's "Wit- 
ness of History to Christ." 

12. How can it be proved that the accepted Canon of the Old 
and Neiv Testament consists only of and contains all the authentic 
and genuine records of tJw Christian Revelation ? 

Here also the reader must be referred to the best treatises on 
the Canon of holy Scriptures. B. F. Westcott, on " The Canon" 
and on "Introduction to the Study of the Gospels"; Tischen- 



62 THE SOURCES OE THEOLOGY. 

dorf, "When were our Gospels composed?" E. Cone Bissell, 
"Historic Origin of the Bible"; Prof. George P. Fisher, "The 
Supernatural Origin of Christianity," and " The Beginnings of 
Christianity." 

13. What is the Nature and Extent of the Inspiration of the 
Christian Scriptures ? 

See below, Chapter IV. 

14. What is the legitimate office of Reason in the sphere of 
Religion ? 

1st. Eeason is the primary revelation God has made to 
man, necessarily presupposed in every subsequent revelation 
of whatever kind. 2d. Hence Eeason, in eluding the moral 
and emotional nature, and experience, must be the organ by 
means of which alone all subsequent revelations can be appre- 
hended and received. A revelation addressed to the irrational 
would be as inconsequent as light to the blind. This is the usus 
organicus of reason. 3d. Hence no subsequent revelation can 
contradict reason acting legitimately within its own sphere. 
For then (1) God would contradict himself, and (2) faith would 
be impossible. To believe is to assent to a thing as true, but 
to see that it contradicts reason, is to see that it is not true. 
Hence the Eeason has the office in judging the Evidences or 
in interpreting the Eecords of a supernatural revelation, of 
exercising the judicium contradictionis. Eeason has therefore 
to determine two questions : 1st. Does God speak ? 2d. What 
does God say? This, however, requires (a) the co-operation 
of all the faculties of knowing, moral as well as purely intellec- 
tual, (b) a modest and teachable spirit, (c) perfect candor and 
loyalty to truth, (d) willingness to put all known truth to 
practice, (e) the illumination and assistance of the promised 
Spirit of truth. 

This is the old distinction between what is contrary to 
reason, and what is above it. It is evident that it is the 
height of absurdity for reason to object to an otherwise ac- 
credited revelation that its teaching is incomprehensible, or 
that it involves elements apparently irreconcilable with other 
truths. Because — (1.) This presumes that human reason is the 
highest form of intelligence, which is absurd. (2.) In no other 
department do men limit their faith by their ability to under- 
stand. What do men of science understand as to the ultimate 
nature of atoms, of inertia, of gravity, of force, of life ? They 
are every moment forced to assume the truth of the impossible, 
and acknowledge the inexplicability of the certain. 

All speculative infidelity springs out of the insane pride of 



RELATION OF PHILOSOPHY TO THEOLOGY. 63 

the human mind, the insatiate rage for explanation, and, above 
all, for the resolution of all knowledge to apparent logical 
unity. Common sense, and the habit of reducing opinions to 
actual practice, leads to health of mind and body, and to 
religious faith. 

15. What is Philosojohy, and what is its relation to Theology ? 

Philosophy, in its wide sense, embraces all human knowl- 
edge, acquired through the use of man's natural faculties, and 
consists of that knowledge interpreted and sytematized by 
the reason. Science is more specific, relating to some special 
department of knowledge thoroughly reduced to system. In 
later days the word Science is becoming more and more defi- 
nitely appropriated to the knowledge of the physical phenomena 
of the universe. In this sense Science has for its task the de- 
termination of phenomena in their classifications of likeness 
and unlikeness, and their laws or order of co-existence and 
succession, and does not inquire into substance, or cause, or 
purpose, etc. Philosophy is presupposed, therefore, in science 
as the first and most general knowledge. It inquires into the 
soul and the laws of thought, into intuition and ultimate truth, 
into substance and real being, into absolute cause, the ultimate 
nature of force and will, into conscience and duty. 

As to its relations to Theology it will be observed — 

1st. The first principles of a true philosophy are presupposed 
in all theology, natural and revealed. 

2d. The Holy Scriptures, although not designed primarily 
to teach philosophy, yet necessarily presuppose and involve the 
fundamental principles of a true philosophy. Not the infer- 
ences of these principles drawn out into a system, but the 
principles themselves, as to substance and cause, as to con- 
science and right, etc. 

3d. The philosophy prevalent in every age has always and 
will necessarily react upon the interpretation of Scripture and 
the formation of theological systems. This has been true as to 
the early Platonism, and the Xeo-Platonism of the second age; 
as to the Aristotelian philosophy of the middle ages ; as to the 
systems of Des Cartes and Leibnitz ; of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, 
and Hegel on the continent, and the systems of Locke, Eeid, 
Coleridge, etc., in Britain. 

4th. The devout believer, however, who is assured that the 
Bible is the very word of God, can never allow his philosophy, 
derived from human sources, to dominate his interpretation of 
the Bible, but will seek with a docile spirit and with the 
assistance of the Holy Spirit, to bring his own philosophy into 
perfect harmony with that which is implicitly contained in 



64 THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGY. 

the word. He will, by all means, seek to realize a philosophy 
which proves itself to be the genuine and natural handmaid of 
the religion which the word reveals. 

All human thought, and all human life, is one. If therefore 
God speaks for any purpose, his word must be supreme, and in 
so far as it has any bearing on any department of human 
opinion or action, it must therein be received as the most 
certain informant and the highest Law. 

The various departments of Christian Theology have been 
ennumerated in Chapter I. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Necessary Presuppositions. 

1. What are the necessary pre suppositions, as to principles, and 
matters of fact, which must be admitted before the possibility of in- 
spiration, or the inspiration of any particular book can be affirmed ? 

1st. The existence of a personal God, possessing the attri- 
butes of power, intelligence, and moral excellence in absolute 
perfection. 

2d. That in his relation to the universe he is at once imma- 
nent and transcendant. Above all, and freely acting upon all 
from without. Within all, and acting through the whole and 
every part from within, in the exercise of all his perfections, 
and according to the laws and modes of action he has estab- 
lished for his creatures, sustaining and governing them, and all 
their actions. 

3d. His moral government over mankind and other intelli- 
gent creatures, whereby he governs them by truth and motives 
addressed to their reason and will, rewards and punishes them 
according to their moral characters and actions, and benevo- 
lently educates them for their high destiny in his communion 
and service. 

4th. The fact that mankind, instead of advancing along a 
line of natural development from a lower to a higher moral 
condition, have fallen from their original state and relation, 
and are now lost in a condition involving corruption and guilt, 
and incapable of recovery without supernatural intervention. 

5th. The historical integrity of the Christian Scriptures, their 
veracity as history, and the genuineness and authenticity of the 
several books. 

6th. The truth of Christianity in the sense in which it is set 
forth in the sacred record. 



66 INSPIRATION. 

All of these necessary presuppositions, the truth of which is 
involved in the doctrine that the Scriptures are inspired, fall 
under one of two classes — 

(1.) Those which rest upon intuition and the moral and spir- 
itual evidences of divine truth, such as the being and attributes 
of God, and his relations to world and to mankind, such as the 
testimony of conscience and the moral consciousness of men as 
sinners justly condemned, and impotent. 

(2.) Those which rest upon matters of fact, depending upon 
historical and critical evidence as to the true origin and con- 
tents of the sacred books. 

If any of these principles or facts are doubted, the evidence 
substantiating them should be sought in their appropriate 
sources, e. g., the department of Apologetics — the Tlieistic ar- 
gument and Natural Theology, the evidences of Christianity, 
the Historic Origin of the Scriptures, the Canon, and Criticism 
and Exegesis of the Sacred Text. 

Statement of the Church Doctrine of Inspiration. 

2. In ivhat sense and to what extent has the Church universally 
held the Bible to be inspired ? 

That the sacred writers were so influenced by the Holy 
Spirit that their writings are as a whole and in every part 
God's word to us — an authoritative revelation to us from God, 
indorsed by him, and sent to us as a rule of faith and practice, 
the original autographs of which are absolutely infallible when 
interpreted in the sense intended, and hence are clothed with 
absolute divine authority. 

3. What is meant by " plenary inspiration" ? 

A divine influence full and sufficient to secure its end. The 
end in this case secured is the perfect infallibility of the Script- 
ures in every part, as a record of fact and doctrine both in 
thought and verbal expression. So that although they come 
to us through the instrumentality of the minds, hearts, imagi- 
nations, consciences, and wills of men, they are nevertheless in 
the strictest sense the word of God. 

4. What is meant by the phrase " verbal inspiration" and how 
can it be proved that the ivords of the Bible ivere inspired ? 

It is meant that the divine influence, of whatever kind it 
may have been, which accompanied the sacred writers in what 
they wrote, extends to their expression of their thoughts in 
language, as well as to the thoughts themselves. The effect 



THE CHURCH DOCTRINE. 67 

being that in the original autograph copies the language ex- 
presses the thought God intended to convey with infallible 
accuracy, so that the words as well as the thoughts are God's 
revelation to us. 

That this influence did extend to the words appears — 1st, 
from the very design of inspiration, which is, not to secure the 
infallible correctness of the opinions of the inspired men them- 
selves (Paul and Peter differed, Gal. ii. 11, and sometimes the 
prophet knew not what he wrote), but to secure an infallible 
record of the truth. But a record consists of language. 

2d. Men think in words, and the more definitely they think 
the more are their thoughts immediately associated with an 
exactly appropriate verbal expression. Infallibility of thought 
can not be secured or preserved independently of an infallible 
verbal rendering. 

3d. The Scriptures affirm this fact, 1 Cor. ii. 13; 1 Thess. ii. 13. 

4th. The New Testament writers, while quoting from the 
Old Testament for purposes of argument, often base their argu- 
ment upon the very words used, thus ascribing authority to 
the word as well as the thought. — Matt. xxii. 32, and Ex. iii. 
6, 16; Matt. xxii. 45, and Psalms ex. 1; Gal. iii. 16, and Gen. 
xvii. 7. 

5. By what means does the Church hold that God has effected 
the result above defined ? 

The Church doctrine recognizes the fact that every part of 
Scripture is at once a product of God's and of man's agency. 
The human writers have produced each his part in the free and 
natural exercise of his personal faculties under his historical 
conditions. God has also so acted concurrently in and through 
them that the whole organism of Scripture and every part there- 
of is his word to us, infallibly true in the sense intended and 
absolutely authoritative. 

God's agency includes the three following elements: 
1st. His Providential agency in producing the Scriptures. 
The whole course of redemption, of which revelation and inspi- 
ration are special functions, was a special providence directing 
the evolution of a specially providential history. Here the 
natural and the supernatural continuall}?- interpenetrate. But, 
as is of necessity the case, the natural was always the rule and 
the supernatural the exception ; yet as little subject to accident, 
and as much the subject of rational design as the natural itself. 
Thus God providentially produced the very man for the precise 
occasion, with the faculties, qualities, education, and gracious 
experience needed for the production of the intended writing. 
Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul, or John, genius and character, 



68 INSPIRATION. 

nature and grace, peasant, philosopher, or prince, the man, 
and with him each snbtile personal accident, was providen- 
tially prepared at the proper moment as the necessary instru- 
mental precondition of the work to be done. 

2d. Revelation of truth not otherwise attainable. When- 
ever the writer was not possessed, or could not naturally 
become possessed, of the knowledge God intended to commu- 
nicate, it was supernaturally revealed to him by vision or 
language. This revelation was supernatural, objective to the 
recipient, and assured to him to be truth of divine origin by 
appropriate evidence. This direct revelation applies to a large 
element of the sacred Scriptures, such as prophecies of future 
events, the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, the promises and 
threatenings of God's word, etc., but it applies by no means to 
all the contents of Scripture. 

3d. Inspiration. The writers were the subjects of a plenary 
divine influence, called inspiration, which acted upon and 
through their natural faculties in all they wrote, directing 
them in the choice of subject and the whole course of thought 
and verbal expression, so as while not interfering with the 
natural exercise of their faculties, they freely and spontane- 
ously produce the very writing which God designed, and 
which thus possesses the attributes of infallibility and author- 
ity as above defined. 

This inspiration differs, therefore, from revelation — (1.) In 
that it was a constant experience of the sacred writers in all 
they wrote, and it affects the equal infallibility of all the ele- 
ments of the writings they produced. While, as before said, 
revelation was supernaturally vouchsafed only when it was 
needed. (2.) In that revelation communicated objectively to 
the mind of the writer truth otherwise unknown. While In- 
spiration was a divine influence flowing into the sacred writer 
subjectively, communicating nothing, but guiding their facul- 
ties in their natural exercise to the producing an infallible 
record of the matters of history, doctrine, prophecy, etc., which 
God designed to send through them to his Church. 

It differs from spiritual illumination, in that spiritual illu- 
mination is an essential element in the sanctifying work of the 
Holy Spirit common to all true Christians. It never leads to 
the knowledge of new truth, but only to the personal discern- 
ment of the spiritual beauty and power of truth already re- 
vealed in the Scriptures. 

Inspiration is a special influence of the Holy Spirit peculiar 
to the prophets and apostles, and attending them only in the 
exercise of their functions as accredited teachers. Most of 
them were the subjects both of inspiration and spiritual illu- 



THE STATEMENTS OF SCRIPTURE. 69 

mination. Some, as Balaam, being unregenerate were inspired, 
though destitute of spiritual illumination. 

The Proof op the Church Doctrine op Inspiration. 

6. From ivhat sources of evidence is the question as to the nature 
and extent of the Inspiration of the Scriptures to be determined ? 

1st. From the statements of the Scriptures themselves. 
2d. From the phenomena of Scripture when critically ex- 
amined, 

The Statements of the Scriptures as to the Nature of their own 

Inspiration. 

7. How can the propriety of proving the Inspiration of the 
Scriptures from their own assertions be vindicated ? 

We do not reason in a circle when we rest the truth of the 
inspiration of the Scriptures on their own assertions. We come 
to this question already believing in their credibility as histo- 
ries, and in that of their writers as witnesses of facts, and in 
the truth of Christianity and in the divinity of Christ. What- 
ever Christ affirms of the Old Testament, and whatever he 
promises to the Apostles, and whatever they assert as to the 
divine influence acting in and through themselves, or as to 
the infallibility and authority of their writings, must be true. 
Especially as all their claims were indorsed by God working 
with them by signs and wonders and gifts of the Holy Ghost. 
It is evident that if their claims to Inspiration and to the in- 
fallibility and authority of their writings are denied, they are 
consequently charged with fanatical presumption and gross 
misrepresentation, and the validity of their testimony on all 
points is denied. When plenary inspiration is denied all Chris- 
tian faith is undermined. 

8. How may the Inspiration of the apostles be fairly inferred 
from the fact that they wrought miracles ? 

A miracle is a divine sign (dr/jueior) accrediting the person 
to whom the power is delegated as a divinely commissioned 
agent, Matt. xvi. 1, 4; Acts xiv. 3; Heb. ii. 4. This divine 
testimony not only encourages, but absolutely renders belief 
obligatory. Where the sign is God commands us to believe. 
But he could not unconditionally command us to believe any 
other than unmixed truth infallibly conveyed. 

9. How may it be shotvn that the gift of Inspiration was prom- 
ised to the apostles ? 



70 INSPIRATION. 

Matt. x. 19; Luke xii. 12; John xiv. 26; xv. 26, 27; xvi. 13; 
Matt, xxviii. 19, 20; John xiii. 20. 

10. In what several ways did they claim to have possession of 
the Spirit? 

They claimed — 

1st. To have the Spirit in fulfilment of the promise of Christ. 
Acts ii. 33; iv. 8; xiii. 2-4; xv. 28; xxi. 11; 1 Thes. i. 5. 

2d. To speak as the prophets of God. — 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; ix. 17 ; 
2 Cor. v. 19 ; 1 Thes. iv. 8. 

3d. To speak with plenary authority. — 1 Cor. ii. 13; 1 Thes. 
ii. 13; 1 John iv. 6; Gal. i. 8, 9; 2 Cor. xiii. 2, 3, 4. They class 
their writings on a level with the Old Testament Scriptures. — 
2 Pet. iii. 16; 1 Thes. v. 27; Col. iv. 16; Kev. ii. 7.— Dr. Hodge. 

11. How ivas their claim confirmed ? 

1st. By their holy, simple, temperate, yet heroic lives. 

2d. By the holiness of the doctrine they taught, and its 
spiritual power, as attested by its effect upon communities and 
individuals. 

3d. By the miracles they wrought. — Heb. ii. 4; Acts xiv. 3; 
Mark xvi. 20. 

4th. All these testimonies are accredited to us not only by 
their own writings, but also by the uniform testimony of the 
early Christians, their contemporaries, and their immediate 
successors. 

12. Show that the writers of the Old Testament claim to be 
inspired. 

1st. Moses claimed that he wrote a part at least of the Pen- 
tateuch by divine command. — Deut. xxxi. 19-22; xxxiv. 10; 
Num. xvi. 28, 29. David claimed it, — 2 Sam. xxiii. 2. 

2d. As a characteristic fact, the Old Testament writers speak 
not in their own name, but preface their messages with, "Thus 
saith the Lord," "The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it," etc. — 
Jer. ix. 12; xiii. 13; xxx. 4; Isa. viii. 1; xxxiii. 10; Mic. iv. 
4; Amos iii. 1; Deut. xviii. 21, 22; 1 Kings xxi. 28; 1 Chron. 
xvii. 3. — Dr. Hodge. 

13. Hoiv was their claim confirmed? 

1st, Their claim was confirmed to their cotemporaries by 
the miracles they wrought, by the fulfilment of many of their 
predictions (Num. xvi. 28, 29), by the holiness of their lives, 
the moral and spiritual perfection of their doctrine, and the 
practical adaptation of the religious system they revealed to 
the urgent wants of men. 



THE STATEMENTS OF SCRIPTURE. 71 

2d. Their claim is confirmed to us principally — (1.) By 
the remarkable fulfillment, in far subsequent ages, of many 
of their prophesies. (2.) By the evident relation of the sym- 
bolical religion which they promulgated to the facts and doc- 
trines of Christianity, proving a divine preadjustment of the 
type to the antitype. (3.) By the indorsement of Christ and 
his apostles. 

14. What are the formulas by which quotations from the Old 
Testament are introduced into the Neiv, and ho w do these forms 
of expression prove the inspiration of the ancient Scriptures ? 

"The Holy Ghost saith," Heb. iii. 7. "The Holy Ghost this 
signifying," Heb. ix. 8. " God saith," Acts ii. 17, and Isa. xliv. 
3; 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, and Deut. xxv. 4. "The Scriptures saith," 
Rom. iv. 3; Gal. iv. 30. "It is written," Luke xviii. 31; xxi. 
22; John ii. 17; xx. 31. "The Lord by the mouth of his ser- 
vant David says," Acts iv. 25, and Ps. ii. 1, 2. "The Lord lim- 
iteth in David a certain day, saying," Heb. iv. 7; Ps. xcv. 7. 
"David in spirit says," Matt. xxii. 43, and Ps. ex. 1. 

Thus these Old Testament writings are what God saith, 
what God saith by David, etc., and are quoted as the author- 
itative basis for conclusive argumentation ; therefore they must 
have been inspired. 

15. How may the Inspiration of the Old Testament writers be 
proved by the express declarations of the New Testament ? 

Luke i. 70 ; Heb. i. 1 ; 2 Tim. iii. 16 ; 1 Pet. i. 10-12 ; 2 Pet. i. 21. 

16. What is the argument on this subject drawn from the manner 
in which Christ and his apostles argue from the Old Testament as 
of final authority? 

Christ constantly quotes the Old Testament, Matt. xxi. 13 ; 
xxii. 43. He declares that it can not be falsified, John vii. 23 ; 
x. 35 ; that the whole law must be fulfilled, Matt. v. 18 ; and all 
things also foretold concerning himself "in Moses, the prophets, 
and the Psalms," Luke xxiv. 44. The apostles habitually quote 
the Old Testament in the same manner, "That it might be ful- 
filled which was written," is with them a characteristic formula, 
Matt. i. 22; ii. 15, 17, 23; John xii. 38; xv. 25; etc. They all 
appeal to the words of Scripture as of final authority. This 
certainly proves infallibility. 



72 INSPIRATION. 



The Phenomena of Scripture considered as Evidence of the Nature 
and Extent of its Inspiration. 

17. What evidence do the Phenomena of the Scriptures afford 
as to nature and extent of the human causes conspiring to produce 
them ? 

Every part of Scripture alike bears evidence of a human 
origin. The writers of all the books were men, and the process 
of composition through which they originated was character- 
istically human. The personal characteristics of thought and 
feeling of these writers have acted spontaneously in their lit- 
erary activity, and have given character to their writings in a 
manner precisely similar to the effect of character upon writing 
in the case of other men. They wrote from human impulses, 
on special occasions, with definite design. Each views his 
subject from an individual standpoint. They gather their ma- 
terial from all sources,— personal experience and observation, 
ancient documents, and contemporary testimony. They ar- 
range their material with reference to their special purpose, 
and draw inferences from principles and facts according to 
the more or less logical habits of their own minds. Their 
emotions and imaginations are spontaneously exercised, and 
flow as co-factors with their reasoning into their compositions. 
The limitations of their personal knowledge and general mental 
condition, and the defects of their habits of thought and style, 
are as obvious in their writings as any other personal charac- 
teristics. They use the language and idiom proper to their 
nation and class. They adopt the usus loquendi of terms cur- 
rent among their people, without committing themselves to 
the philosophical ideas in which the usage originated. Their 
mental habits and methods were those of their nation and gen- 
eration. They were for the most part Orientals, and hence 
their writings abound with metaphor and symbol; and al- 
though always reliable in statement as far as required for their 
purpose, they never aimed at the definiteness of enumeration, 
or chronological or circumstantial narration, which character- 
izes the statistics of modern western nations. Like all purely 
literary men of every age, they describe the order and the facts 
of nature according to their appearances, and not as related to 
their abstract law or cause. 

Some of these facts have, by many careless thinkers, been 
supposed to be inconsistent with the asserted fact of divine 
guidance. But it is evident, upon reflection, that if God is to 
reveal himself at all, it must be under all the limits of human 
modes of thought and speech. And if he inspires human agents 



THE PHENOMENA OF SCRIPTURE. 73 

to communicate his revelation in writing, he must use them in 
a manner consistent with their nature as rational and sponta- 
neous agents. And it is evident that all the distinctions be- 
tween the different degrees of perfection in human knowledge, 
and elegance in human dialect and style, are nothing when 
viewed in the light of the common relations of man to God. 
He obviously could as well reveal himself through a peasant 
as through a philosopher; and all the better when the per- 
sonal characteristics of the peasant were providentially and 
graciously preadj listed to the special end designed. 

18. What evidence do the Phenomena of the Scriptures afford 
as to the nature and extent of the divine agency exercised in their 
production ? 

1st. Every part of Scripture affords moral and spiritual evi- 
dence of its divine origin. This is, of course, more conspicuous 
in some portions than in others. There are transcendant truths 
revealed, a perfect morality, an unveiling of the absolute per- 
fections of the Godhead, a foresight of future events, a heart- 
searching and rein -trying knowledge of the secrets of the 
human soul, a light informing the reason and an authority 
binding the conscience, a practical grasp of all the springs of 
human experience and life, all of which can only have orig- 
inated in a divine source. These are characteristics of a large 
portion of the Scriptures, and of the Scriptures alone in all lit- 
erature, and together with the accompanying witness of the 
Holy Ghost, these are practically the evidences upon which the 
faith of a majority of believers rests. 

2d. But another characteristic of the Scriptures, taken in 
connection with the foregoing, proves incontestibly their divine 
origin as a whole and in every part. The sacred Scriptures are 
an. organism, that is an whole composed of many parts, the 
parts all differing in matter, form, and structure from each 
other, like the several members of the human body, yet each 
adjusted to each other and to the whole, through the most 
intricate and delicate correlations mediating a common end. 
Scripture is the record and interpretation of redemption. Re- 
demption is a work which God has prepared and wrought out 
by many actions in succession through an historical process 
occupying centuries. A supernatural providence has flowed 
forward evolving a system of divine interventions, accompanied 
and interpreted by a supernaturally informed and guided order 
of prophets. Each writer has his own special and temporary 
occasion, theme, and audience. And yet each contributed to 
build up the common organism, as the providential history has 
advanced, each special writing beyond its temporary purpose 



74 INSPIRATION. 

taking its permanent place as a member of the whole, the 
gospel fulfilling the law, antitype has answered to type and 
fulfilment to prophecy, history has been interpreted by doc- 
trine, and doctrine has given law to duty and to life. The 
more minutely the contents of each book are studied in the 
light of its special purpose, the more wonderfully various and 
exact will its articulations in the general system and ordered 
structure of the whole be discovered to be. This is the highest 
conceivable evidence of design, which in the present case is 
the proof of a divine supernatural influence comprehending the 
whole, and reaching to every part, through sixteen centuries, 
sixty-six distinct writings, and about forty co-operating human 
agents. Thus the divine agency in the genesis of every part 
of Scripture is as clearly and certainly determined as it is in 
the older genesis of the heavens and the earth. 

19. What is the objection to this doctrine drawn from the free 
manner in ivhich the New Testament writers quote those of the Old 
Testament, and the answer to that objection ? 

In a majority of instances the New Testament writers quote 
those of the Old Testament with perfect verbal accuracy. Some- 
times they quote the Septuagint version, when it conforms to the 
Hebrew ; at others they substitute a new version ; and at other 
times again they adhere to the Septuagint, when it differs from 
the Hebrew. In a number of instances, which however are 
comparatively few, their quotations from the Old Testament 
are made very freely, and in apparent accommodation of the 
literal sense. 

Rationalistic interpreters have argued from this last class 
of quotations that it is impossible that both the Old Testament 
writer quoted from, and the New Testament writer quoting, 
could have been the subjects of plenary inspiration, because, 
say they, if the ipsissima verba were infallible in the first in- 
stance, an infallible writer would have transferred them un- 
changed. But surely if a human author may quote himself 
freely, changing the expression, and giving a new turn to 
his thought in order to adapt it the more perspicuously to his 
present purpose, the Holy Spirit may take the same liberty 
with his own. The same Spirit that rendered the Old Testa- 
ment writers infallible in writing only pure truth, in the very 
form that suited his purpose then, has rendered the New Tes- 
tament writers infallible in so using the old materials, that 
while they elicit a new sense, they teach only the truth, the 
very truth moreover contemplated in the mind of God from 
the beginning, and they teach it with divine authority. — See 
Fairbairn's " Herm. Manual," Part III. Each instance of such 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 75 

quotation should be examined in detail, as Dr. Fairbairn has 
done. 

20. What objection to the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration is 
drawn from the cdleged fact that "Discrepancies" exist in the 
Scriptural Text? and how is this objection to be answered? 

It is objected that the sacred text contains numerous state- 
ments which are inconsistent with other statements made in 
some part of Scripture itself, or with some certainly ascertained 
facts of history or of science. 

It is obvious that such a state of facts, even if it could be 
proved to exist, would not, in opposition to the abundant pos- 
itive evidence above adduced, avail to disprove the claim that 
the Scriptures are to some extent and in some degree the pro- 
duct of divine inspiration. The force of the objection would 
depend essentially upon the number and character of the in- 
stances of discrepancy actually proved to exist, and would bear 
not upon the fact of Inspiration, but upon its nature and degree 
and extent, 

The fact of the actual existence of any such " discrepancies," 
it is evident, can be determined only by the careful examina- 
tion of each alleged case separately. This examination belongs 
to the departments of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis. The 
following considerations, however, are evidently well-grounded, 
and sufficient to allay all apprehension on the subject. 

1st. The Church has never held the verbal infallibility 
of our translations, nor the perfect accuracy of the copies of 
the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures now possessed by 
us. These copies confessedly contain many "discrepancies" 
resulting from frequent transcription. It is, nevertheless, the 
unanimous testimony of Christian scholars, that while these 
variations embarrass the interpretation of many details, they 
neither involve the loss nor abate the evidence of a single es- 
sential fact or doctrine of Christianity. And it is moreover 
reassuring to know that believing criticism, by the discovery 
and collation of more ancient and accurate copies, is con- 
stantly advancing the Church to the possession of a more per- 
fect text of the original Scriptures than she has enjoyed since 
the apostolic age. 

2d. The Church has asserted absolute infallibility only of 
the original autograph copies of the Scriptures as they came 
from the hands of their inspired writers. And even of these 
she has not asserted infinite knowledge, but only absolute in- 
fallibility in stating the matters designed to be asserted. A 
" discrepancy," therefore, in the sense in which the new critics 
affirm and the Church denies its existence, is a form of state- 



76 INSPIRATION. 

ment existing in the original text of the Hebrew and Greek 
Scriptures evidently designed to assert as true that which is 
in plain irreconcilable contradiction to other statements exist- 
ing in some other portions of the same original text of Script- 
ure, or to some other certainly ascertained element of human 
knowledge. A "discrepancy" fulfilling in every particular this 
definition must be proved to exist, or the Church's doctrine of 
plenary verbal inspiration remains unaffected. 

3d. It is beyond question, that, in the light of all that the 
Scriptures themselves assert or disclose as to the nature and 
the extent of the divine influence controlling their genesis, and 
as to their authority over man's conscience and life as the voice 
of God, the existence of any such "discrepancies" as above de- 
fined is a violent improbability. Those who assert the exist- 
ence of one or more of them must bring them out, and prove 
to the community of competent judges, that all the elements 
of the above definition meet in each alleged instance, not prob- 
ably merely, but beyond the possibility of doubt. The onus 
probandi rests exclusively on them. 

4th. But observe that this is for them a very difficult task to 
perform, one in any instance indeed hardly possible. For to 
make good their point against the vast presumptions opposed 
to it, they must prove over and over again in the case of each 
alleged discrepancy each of the following points: (1.) That 
the alleged discrepant statement certainly occurred in the 
veritable autograph copy of the inspired writing containing 
it. (2.) That their interpretation of the statement, which oc- 
casions the discrepancy, is the only possible one, the one it 
was certainly intended to bear. The difficulty of this will be 
apprehended when we estimate the inherent obscurity of an- 
cient narratives, unchronological, and fragmentary, with a 
background and surroundings of almost unrelieved darkness. 
This condition of things which so often puzzles the interpreter, 
and prevents the apologist from proving the harmony of the 
narrative, with equal force baffles all the ingenious efforts of 
the rationalistic critic to demonstrate the "discrepancy." Yet 
this he must do, or the presumption will remain that it does 
not exist. (3.) He must also prove that the facts of science or 
of history, or the Scriptural statements, with which the state- 
ment in question is asserted to be inconsistent, are real facts 
or real parts of the autograph text of canonical Scripture, and 
that the sense in which they are found to be inconsistent with 
the statement in question is the only sense they can rationally 
bear. (4. ) When the reality of the opposing facts or statements 
is determined, and their true interpretation is ascertained, then 
it must, in conclusion, be shown not only that they appear incon- 



OBJECTIOXS AX S WE RED. 77 

sistent. nor merely that their reconciliation is impossible in onr 
present state of knowledge, but that they are in themselves 
essentially incapable of being reconciled. 

5th. Finally it is sufficient for the present purpose, to point 
to the fact that no single case of " discrepancy." as above de-. 
fined, has been so proved to exist as to secure the recognition 
of the community of believing scholars. Difficulties in inter- 
pretation and apparently irreconcilable statements exist, but no 
•• discrepancy " has been proved. Advancing knowledge re- 
moves some difficulties and discovers others. It is in the high- 
est degree probable that perfect knowledge would remove all. 

21. Explain the meaning of such passages as 1 Cor. vii. 6 and 
12 and 40, Rom. iii. 5 and vi. 19, and Gal. hi. 15, and show their 
■perfect consistency with the fact of the plenary inspiration of the 
whole Bible. 

" I speak as a man." is a phrase occurring frequently, and its 
sense is determined by the context. In Romans iii. 5. it signifies 
that Paul was. for argument's sake, using the language common 
to men: it was the Jews' opinion, not his own. In Rom. vi. 19. 
it signifies "in a manner adapted to human comprehension." 
and in Gal. iii. 15. it signifies "I use an illustration drawn from 
human affairs." etc. 

"I speak this by permission, not of commandment." — 1 Cor. 
vii. 6. refers to verse ii. Marriage was always permitted, but 
under certain circumstances inexpedient. 

"And unto the married I command, yet not I but the Lord.'' 
'•But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."'— 1 Cor. vii. 10 and 12. 
Reference is here made to what the " Lord." that is Christ, taught 
in person while on earth. The distinction is made between what 
Christ taught while on earth, and what Paul teaches. As Paul 
puts his word here on an equal basis of authority with Christ's 
word, it of course implies that Paul claims an inspiration which 
makes his word equal to that of Christ in infallibility and 
authority. 

••And I think also that I have the Spirit of God.'' — 1 Cor. vii. 
40. "I think (dona) I have, is only, agreeably to Greek usage. 
an urbane way of saying. I have (comp. Gal. ii. (3. 1 Cor. xii. 22). 
Paul was in no doubt of his being an organ of the Holy Ghost." 
Hodge, "Com. on First Corinthians.*' 

Defective Statement of the Doctrine. 

22. State what is meant by theological writers by the inspira- 
tion "of superintendence.'' "of elevation,'' "of direction:" and "of 
suggestion." 



78 INSPIRATION. 

Certain writers on this subject, confounding the distinction 
between inspiration and revelation, and using the former term 
to express the whole divine influence of which the sacred writers 
were the subjects, first, in knowing the truth, second, in writing 
it, necessarily distinguish between different degrees of inspira- 
tion in order to accommodate their theory to the facts of the 
case. Because, first, some of the contents of Scripture evidently 
might be known without supernatural aid, while much more 
as evidently could not; second, the different writers exercised 
their natural faculties, and carried their individual peculiarities 
of thought, feeling, and manner into their writings. 

By the "inspiration of superintendence," these writers meant 
precisely what we have above given as the definition of inspira- 
tion. By the "inspiration of elevation," they meant that divine 
influence which exalted their natural faculties to a degree of 
energy otherwise unattainable. 

By the "inspiration of direction," they meant that divine in- 
fluence which guided the writers in the selection and dispo- 
sition of their material. 

By the "inspiration of suggestion," they meant that divine 
influence which directly suggested to their minds new, and 
otherwise unattainable truth. 

23. What objections may be fairly made to these distinctions ? 

1st. These distinctions spring from a prior failure to distin- 
guish between revelation the frequent, and inspiration the con- 
stant, phenomenon presented by Scripture; the one furnishing 
the material when not otherwise attainable, the other guiding 
the writer at every point, (1) in securing the infallible truth of 
all he writes; and (2) in the selection and distribution of his 
material. 

2d. It is injurious to distinguish between different degrees 
of inspiration, as if the several portions of the Scriptures were 
in different degrees God's word, while in truth the whole is 
equally and absolutely so. 

False Doctrines of Inspiration. 

24. What Principles necessarily lead to the denial of any super- 
natural Inspiration ? 

All philosophical principles or tendencies of thought which 
exclude the distinction between the natural and the supernat- 
ural necessarily lead to the denial of Inspiration in the sense 
affirmed by the Church. These are, for example, all Panthe- 
istic, Materialistic, and Naturalistic principles, and of course 
Rationalistic principles in all their forms. 



FALSE DOCTRINES OF. 79 

25. In what several forms has the doctrine of a Partial Inspi- 
ration of the Scriptures been held ? 

1st. It has been maintained that certain books were the 
subjects of plenary inspiration, while others were produced 
with only a natural providential and gracious assistance of 
God. S. T. Coleridge admittted the plenary inspiration of 
"the law and the prophets, no jot or tittle of which can pass 
unfulfilled," while he denied it of the rest of the canon. 

2d. Many have admitted that the moral and spiritual ele- 
ments of the Scriptures, and their doctrines as far as these 
relate to the nature and purposes of God not otherwise ascer- 
tainable, are products of inspiration, but deny it of the his- 
torical and biographical elements, and of all its allusions to 
scientific facts or laws. 

3d. Others admit that the inspiration of the writers con- 
trolled their thoughts, but deny that it extended to its verbal 
expression. 

In one, or in all of these senses, different men have held 
that the Scriptures are only "partially" inspired. All such 
deny that they "are the word of God" as affirmed by the 
Scriptures themselves and by all the historical Churches, and 
admit merely that they "contain the word of God." 

26. State the doctrine of Gracious Inspiration. 

Coleridge, in his " Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit," Let- 
ter vii., holds that the Scriptures, except the Law and the 
Prophets, were produced by their writers assisted by "the 
highest degree of that grace and communion with the Spirit 
which the Church under all circumstances, and every regen- 
erate member of the Church of Christ, is permitted to hope 
and instructed to pray for." This is the doctrine of Maurice 
("Theological Essays," p. 339) and virtually that of Morell 
(" Philosophy of Religion," p. 186) and of the Quakers. These 
admit an objective supernatural revelation, and that this is 
contained in the Scriptures, which are highly useful, and in 
such a sense an authoritative standard of faith and practice; 
that no pretended revelation which is inconsistent with Script- 
ure can be true, and that they are a judge in all controversies 
between Christians. Nevertheless they hold that the Script- 
ures are only " a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit from 
whom they have all their excellency," which Spirit illumes 
every man in the world, and reveals to him either with, or 
without the Scriptures, if they are unknown, all the knowl- 
edge of God and of his will which are necessary for his salva- 
tion and guidance, on condition of his rendering a constant 



80 INSPIRA TION. 

obedience to that light as thus graciously communicated to 
him and to all men. "Barclay's Apology, Theses Theological," 
Propositions i., ii., and iii. 



AUTHOEITATIVE STATEMENTS. 

Roman Catholic. — " Decrees of Council of Trent" Sess. iv. " Which 
gospel . . . our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with 
his own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by his apostles to 
every creature, . . . and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are 
contained in the written books, and the unwritten tradition, which received 
by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles 
themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, 
transmitted as it were from hand to hand : [the Synod] following the 
example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal 
affection of piety and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the 
New Testament — seeing God is the author of both — as also the said tra- 
ditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been 
dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, 
and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession." 

"Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council,'''' 1870, Sess. iii., Ch. ii. 
"Further this supernatural revelation, according to the universal belief 
of the Church, declared by the sacred Synod of Trent, is contained in 
the written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, 
having been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, 
or from the apostles themselves, by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, 
have been transmitted as it were from hand to hand. And these books 
of the Old and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canon- 
ical, in their integrity, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in 
the decree of the said Council, and are contained in the ancient Edition 
of the Yulgate. These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, 
not because having been carefully composed by mere human industry, 
they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because 
they contain revelation with no admixture of error ; but because, having 
been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for 
their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself." 

Lutheran. — "Formula Concordim Epitome" I. "We believe, con- 
fess, and teach that the only rule and norm, according to which all dog- 
mas and all doctors ought to be esteemed and judged, is no other 
whatever than the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New 
Testament, as it is written, Ps. cxix. 105, and Gal. i. 8." 

Eefoemed. — "Second Helvetic Confession," Ch. i. Concerning Holy 
Scripture. "We believe and confess, that the canonical Scriptures of 
the holy prophets and apostles of each Testament are the true word of 
God, and that they possess sufficient authority from themselves alone and 
not from man. For God himself spoke to the fathers, to the prophets, 
and to the apostles, and continues to speak to us through the Holy 
Scriptures." 

"The Belr/ic Confession" Art. iii. "We confess that this word of 
God was not sent nor delivered by the will of man, but that holy men of 
God spake as they -were moved by the Holy Ghost, as the apostle Peter 
saith. And that afterwards God, from a special care which he has for 
us and our salvation, commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, 



CREED STATEMENTS. 81 

to commit his revealed word to writing, and he himself wrote with his 
own finger the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings 
holy and divine Scriptures. " 

"Westminster Confession of Faith," Chap. i. "Therefore it pleased 
the Lord, at sundry times and in divers manners, to reveal himself and 
to declare his will unto his Church; and afterwards, for the better pre- 
serving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establish- 
ment and comfort of the Church against the Corruption of the flesh and 
the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto 
writing." "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to 
be believed and obeyed, dependetb not upon the testimony of any man 
or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the Author thereof; 
and therefore it is to be received because it is the word of God." 



CHAPTER V. 

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, having been 
given by Inspiration of God, are the all-sufficient and only Rule 
of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Controversies. 

(This chapter is compiled from Dr. Hodge's "unpublished 
"Lectures on the Church.") 

1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only 
infallible rule of faith and practice ? 

Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign author- 
ity. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his 
teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures 
of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through 
which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a 
knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning 
himself, and what duties he requires of us. 

2. What does the Romish Church declare to be the infallible rule 
of faith and practice ? 

The Romish theory is that the complete rule of faith and 
practice consists of Scripture and tradition, or the oral teaching 
of Christ and his apostles, handed down through the Church. 
Tradition they hold to be necessary, 1st, to teach additional 
truth not contained in the Scriptures; and, 2d, to interpret 
Scripture. The Church being the divinely constituted depos- 
itory and judge of both Scripture and tradition. — "Decrees of 
Council of Trent," Session IV, and "Dens Theo.," Tom. II., N. 
80 and 81. 

3. By what arguments do they seek to establish tJie authority of 
tradition? By what criterion do they distinguish true traditions 
from false, and on what grounds do they base the authority of tlie 
traditions they receive? 

1st. Their arguments in behalf of tradition are — (1.) Script- 
ure authorizes it, 2 Thess. ii. 15; iii. 6. (2.) The early fathers 



INVALIDITY OF TRADITION. 83 

asserted its authority and founded their faith largely upon it. 
(3.) The oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, when clearly 
ascertained, is intrinsically of equal authority with their writ- 
ings. The Scriptures themselves are handed down to us by 
the evidence of tradition, and the stream can not rise higher 
than its source. (4.) The necessity of the case, (a.) Scripture 
is obscure, needs tradition as its interpreter, (b.) Scripture is 
incomplete as a rule of faith and practice; since there are many 
doctrines and institutions, universally recognized, which are 
founded only upon tradition as a supplement to Scripture. 
(5.) Analogy. Every state recognizes both written and un- 
written, common and statute law. 

2d. The criterion by which they distinguish between true 
and false traditions is Catholic consent. The Anglican ritual- 
ists confine the application of the rule to the first three or four 
centuries. The Romanists recognize that as an authoritative 
consent which is constitutionally expressed by the bishops in 
general council, or by the Pope ex-cathedra, in any age of the 
church whatever. 

3d. They defend the traditions which, they hold to be true. 
(1.) On the ground of historical testimony, tracing them up to 
the apostles as their source. (2.) The authority of the Church 
expressed by Catholic consent. 

4. By what arguments may the invalidity of all ecclesiastical 
tradition, as a part of our rule of faith and practice, be shown? 

1st. The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to 
oral tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage 
cited (2 Thess. ii. 15, and iii. 6), signifies all his instructions, 
oral and written, communicated to those very people themselves, 
not handed down. On the other hand, Christ rebuked this 
doctrine of the Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, 
Matt. xv. 3, 6; Mark vii. 7. 

2d. It is improbable a priori that God would supplement 
Scripture with tradition as part of our rule of faith. (1.) Be- 
cause Scripture, as will be shown below (questions 7-14), is 
certain, definite, complete, and perspicuous. (2.) Because tra- 
dition, from its very nature, is indeterminate, and liable to 
become adulterated with every form of error. Besides, as will 
be shown below (question 20), the authority of Scripture does 
not rest ultimately upon tradition. 

3d. The whole ground upon which Romanists base the au- 
thority of their traditions (viz., history and church authority) 
is invalid. (1.) History utterly fails them. For more than 
three hundred years after the apostles they have very little, 
and that contradictory, evidence for any one of their traditions. 



84 THE RULE OE EAITH AND PRACTICE. 

They are thus forced to the absurd assumption that what was 
taught in the fourth century was therefore taught in the third, 
and therefore in the first. (2.) The church is not infallible, as 
will be shown below (question 18). 

4th. Their practice is inconsistent with their own principles. 
Many of the earliest and best attested traditions they do not 
receive. Many of their pretended traditions are recent inven- 
tions unknown to the ancients. 

5th. Many of their traditions, such as relate to the priest- 
hood, the sacrifice of the mass, etc., are plainly in direct oppo- 
sition to Scripture. Yet the infallible church affirms the infal- 
libility of Scripture. A house divided against itself can not 
stand. 

5. What is necessary to constitute a sole and infallible rule of 
faith? 

Plenary inspiration, completeness, perspicuity, and acces- 
sibility. 

6. What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor 
of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith ? 

1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and 
command faith and obedience. 

2d. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Script- 
ures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith 
whatsoever. — Luke xvi. 29; x. 26; John v. 39; Kom. iv. 3; 
2 Tim. iii. 15. 

3d. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, 
even apostolic teaching, to this test. — Acts xvii. 11; see also 
Isa. viii. 16. 

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and pervert- 
ing the Scriptures. — Matt. xv. 7-9; Mark vii. 5-8; see also 
Kev. xxii. 18, 19, and Deut. iv. 2; xii. 32; Josh. i. 7. 

7. In ivhat sense is the completeness of Scripture as a rule of 
faith asserted ? 

It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation 
which God has ever made to man, but that their contents are 
the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to 
man, and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man's 
guidance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of wor- 
ship, and excludes the necessity and the right of any human 
inventions. 

8. Hoiv may this completeness be proved from the design of 
Scripture ? 



THE SCRIPTURES PERSPICUOUS. 85 

The Scriptures profess to lead us to God. Whatever is 
necessary to that end they must teach us. If any supple- 
mentary rule, as tradition, is necessary to that end, they must 
refer us to it. " Incompleteness here would be falsehood." 
But while one sacred writer constantly refers us to the writ- 
ings of another, not one of them ever intimates to us either 
the necessity or the existence of any other rule. — John xx. 31 ; 
2 Tim. hi. 15-17. 

9. By ivhat other arguments may this principle be proved? 

As the Scriptures profess to be a rule complete for its end, 
so they have always been practically found to be such by the 
true spiritual people of God in all ages. They teach a complete 
and harmonious system of doctrine. They furnish all necessary 
principles for the government of the private lives of Christians, 
in every relation, for the public worship of God, and for the 
administration of the affairs of his kingdom; and they repel 
all pretended traditions and priestly innovations. 

10. In what sense do Protestants affirm and Romanists deny the 
'perspicuity of Scripture ? 

Protestants do not affirm that the doctrines revealed in the 
Scriptures are level to man's powers of understanding. Many 
of them are confessedly beyond all understanding. Nor do 
they affirm that every part of Scripture can be certainly and 
perspicuously expounded, many of the prophesies being per- 
fectly enigmatical until explained by the event. But they do 
affirm that every essential article of faith and rule of practice 
is clearly revealed in Scripture, or may certainly be deduced 
therefrom. This much the least instructed Christian may learn 
at once; while, on the other hand, it is true, that with the 
advance of historical and critical knowledge, and by means 
of controversies, the Christian church is constantly making 
progress in the accurate interpretation of Scripture, and in the 
comprehension in its integrity of the system therein taught. 

Protestants affirm and Romanists deny that private and 
unlearned Christians may safely be allowed to interpret Script- 
ure for themselves. 

11. How can the perspicuity of Scripture be proved from the 
fact that it is a law and a message ? 

We saw (question 8) that Scripture is either complete or 
false, from its own professed design. We now prove its per- 
spicuity upon the same principle. It professes to be (1) a law 
to be obeyed; (2) a revelation of truth to be believed, to be 
received by us in both aspects upon the penalty of eternal 



86 THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 

death. To suppose it not to be perspicuous, relatively to its 
design of commanding and teaching, is to charge God with 
dealing with us in a spirit at once disingenuous and cruel. 

12. In what passages is their perspicuity asserted? 

Ps. xix. 7, 8; cxix. 105, 130; 2 Cor. iii. 14 ; 2 Pet. i. 18, 19; 
Hab. ii. 2; 2 Tim. iii. 15, 17. 

13. By ivhat other arguments may this point be established ? 

1st. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all 
men promiscuously, or else to the whole body of believers as 
such.— Deut. vi. 4-9; Luke i. 3; Kom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Cor. i. 
1 ; iv. 2 ; Gal. i. 2 ; Eph. i. 1 ; Phil. i. 1 ; Col. i. 2 ; James i. 1 ; 
1 Peter i. 1 ; 2 Peter i. 1 ; 1 John ii. 12, 14 ; Jucle i. 1 ; Eev. i. 3, 4 ; 
ii. 7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy and 
Titus. 

2d. All Christians promiscuously are commanded to search 
the Scriptures. — 2 Tim. iii. 15, 17; Acts xvii. 11; John v. 39. 

3d. Universal experience. We have the same evidence of 
the light-giving power of Scripture that we have of the same 
property in the sun. The argument to the contrary is an insult 
to the understanding of the whole world of Bible readers. 

4th. The essential unity in faith and practice, in spite of 
all circumstantial differences, of all Christian communities of 
every age and nation, who draw their religion directly from 
the open Scriptures. 

14. What ivas the third quality required to constitute the Script- 
ures the sufficient rule of faith and practice ? 

Accessibility. It is self-evident that this is the pre-eminent 
characteristic of the Scriptures, in contrast to tradition, which 
is in the custody of a corporation of priests, and to every other 
pretended rule whatsoever. The agency of the church in this 
matter is simply to give all currency to the word of God. 

15. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the judge 
as well as tJie rule in questions of faith ? 

" A rule is a standard of judgment ; a judge is the expounder 
and applier of that rule to the decision of particular cases." 
The Protestant doctrine is — 

1st. That the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith 
and practice. 

2d. (1.) Negatively. That there is no body of men who are 
either qualified, or authorized, to interpret the Scriptures, or 
to apply their principles to the decision of particular ques- 
tions, in a sense binding upon the faith of their felloio Christians. 



THE ROMISH DOCTRINE. 87 

(2.) Positively. That Scripture is the only infallible voice in 
the church, and is to be interpreted, in its own light, and with 
the gracious help of the Holy Ghost, who is promised to every 
Christian (1 John ii. 20-27), by each individual for himself, 
with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow 
Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind only those 
who voluntarily profess them, and as to matter, they bind only 
so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because 
the Bible does so teach. 

16. What is the Romish doctrine as to the authority of the church 
as the infallible interpreter of the rule of faith and the authoritative 
judge of all controversies ? 

The Romish doctrine is that the church is absolutely infal- 
lible in all matters of Christian faith and practice, and the 
divinely authorized depository and interpreter of the rule of 
faith. Her office is not to convey new revelations from God to 
man, yet her inspiration renders her infallible in disseminating 
and interpreting the original revelation communicated through 
the apostles. 

The church, therefore, authoritatively determines — 1st. What 
is Scripture? 2d. What is genuine tradition? 3d. What is 
the true sense of Scripture and tradition, and what is the true 
application of that perfect rule to every particular question of 
belief or practice. 

This authority vests in the pope, when acting in his official 
capacity, and in the bishops as a body ; as when assembled in 
general council, or when giving universal consent to a decree 
of pope or council. — "Decrees of Council of Trent," Session iv. ; 
"Deus Theo.," N. 80, 81, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96. "Bellarmine," Lib. 
III., de eccles., cap. xiv., and Lib. II., de council., cap. ii. 

17. By idhat arguments do they seek to establish this authority? 

1st. The promises of Christ, given, as they claim, to the 
apostles, and to their official successor, securing their infallibil- 
ity, and consequent authority. — Matt. xvi. 18; xviii. 18-20; 
Luke xxiv. 47-49 ; John xvi. 13 ; xx. 23. 

2d. The commission given to the church as the teacher of 
the world. — Matt, xxviii. 19, 20; Luke x. 16, etc. 

3d. The church is declared to be "the pillar and ground of 
the truth," and it is affirmed that "the gates of hell shall never 
prevail against her." 

4th. To the church is granted power to bind and loose, and 
he that will not hear the church is to be treated as a heathen. 
Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 15-18. 

5th. The church is commanded to discriminate between 



88 THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 

truth and error, and must consequently be qualified and au- 
thorized to do so. — 2 Thessalonians iii. 6; Romans xvi. 17; 
2 John 10. 

6th. From the necessity of the case, men need and crave an 
ever-living, visible, and cotemporaneous infallible Interpreter 
and Judge. 

7th. From universal analogy every community among men 
has the living judge as well as the written law, and the one 
would be of no value without the other. 

8th. This power is necessary to secure unity and univer- 
sality, which all acknowledge to be essential attributes of the 
true church. 

18. By what arguments may this claim of the Romish church 
he shown to be utterly baseless ? 

1st. A claim vesting in mortal men a power so momentous 
can be established only by the most clear and certain evidence, 
and the failure to produce such converts the claim into a treason 
at once against God and the human race. 

2d. Her evidence fails, because the promises of Christ to 
preserve his church from extinction and from error do none 
of them go the length of pledging infallibility. The utmost 
promised is, that the true people of God shall never perish en- 
tirely from the earth, or be left to apostatize from the essentials 
of the faith. 

3d. Her evidence fails, because these promises of Christ were 
addressed not to the officers of the church as such, but to the 
body of true believers. Compare John xx. 23 with Luke xxiv. 
33, 47, 48, 49, and 1 John ii. 20, 27. 

4th. Her evidence fails, because the church to which the 
precious promises of the Scriptures are pledged is not an ex- 
ternal, visible society, the authority of which is vested in the 
hands of a perpetual line of apostles. For — (1.) the word church 
{kuHXydia) is a collective term, embracing the effectually called 
(jiXyrdi) or regenerated. — Rom. i. 7; viii. 28; 1 Cor. i. 2; Jude i. ; 
Rev. xvii. 14; also Rom. ix. 24; 1 Cor. vii. 18-24; Gal. i. 15; 2 
Tim. i. 9; Heb. ix. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 9; v. 10; Eph. i. 18; 2 'Pet. i. 10. 
(2.) The attributes ascribed to the church prove it to consist 
alone of the true, spiritual people of God as such. — Eph. v. 27; 
1 Pet. ii. 5; John x. 27; Col. i. 18, 24. (3.) The epistles are 
addressed to the church, and in their salutations explain that 
phrase as equivalent to "the called," "the saints," "all true 
worshippers of God;" witness the salutations of 1st and 2d 
Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1st and 2d Peter and Jude. 
The same attributes are ascribed to the members of the true 
church as such throughout the body of the Epistles. — 1 Cor. i. 



ROMISH DOCTRINE REFUTED. 89 

30; iii. 16; vi 11. 19; Epli. ii. 3-8. and 19-22; 1 Thes. v. 4, 5; 
2 Thes. ii. 13; Col. i. 21; ii. 10; 1 Pet. ii. 9. 

5th. The inspired apostles have had no successors. (1.) There 
is no evidence that they had such in the New Testament. (2.) 
While provision was made for the regular perpetuation of the 
offices of presbyter and deacon (1 Tim. iii. 1-13). there are 
no directions given for the perpetuation of the apostolate. 
(3.) There is perfect silence concerning the continued exist- 
ence of any apostles in the church in the writings of the early 
centuries. Both the name and the thing ceased. (4.) Xo one 
ever claiming to be one of their successors have possessed the 
"signs of an apostle.'* — 2 Cor. xii. 12; 1 Cor. ix. 1; Gal. i. 1. 12; 
Acts i. 21. 22. 

6th. This claim, as it rests upon the authority of the Pope, 
is utterly unscriptural. because the Pope is not known to Script- 
ure. As it rests upon the authority of the whole body of the 
bishops, expressed in their general consent, it is unscriptural 
for the reasons above shown, and it is, moreover, impracticable, 
since their universal judgment never has been and never can 
be impartially collected and pronounced. 

7th. There can be no infallibility where there is not self- 
consistency. But as a matter of fact the Papal church has not 
been self-consistent in her teaching. (1.) She has taught dif- 
ferent doctrines in different sections and ages. (2.) She affirms 
the infallibility of the holy Scriptures, and at the same time 
teaches a system plainly and radically inconsistent with their 
manifest sense; witness the doctrines of the priesthood, the 
mass, penance, of works, and of Mary worship. Therefore 
the Church of Piome hides the Scriptures from the people. 

8th. If this Romish system be true then genuine spiritual re- 
ligion ought to flourish in her communion, and all the rest of the 
world ought to be a moral desert. The facts are notoriously 
the reverse. If, therefore, we admit that the Komish system is 
true, we subvert one of the principal evidences of Christianity 
itself, viz.. the self-evidencing light and practical power of true 
religion, and the witness of the Holy Ghost. 

19. Bit what direct arguments may the doctrine that the Script- 
ures are the final judge of controversies be established? 

That all Christians are to study the Scriptures for them- 
selves, and that in all questions as to God's revealed will the 
appeal is to the Scriptures alone, is proved by the following 
facts: 

1st. Scripture is perspicuous, see above, questions 11-13. 

2d. Scripture is addressed to all Christians as such, see above, 
question 13. 



90 THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 

3d. All Christians are commanded to search the Scriptures, 
and by them to judge all doctrines and all professed teachers. — 
John v. 39; Acts xvii. 11; Gal. i. 8; 2 Cor. iv. 2; 1 Thess. v. 21; 
1 John iv. 1, 2. 

4th. The promise of the Holy Spirit, the author and inter- 
preter of Scripture, is to all Christians as such. Compare John 
xx. 23 with Luke xxiv. 47-49; 1 John ii. 20, 27; Bom. viii. 9; 
1 Cor. iii. 16, 17. 

5th. Beligion is essentially a personal matter. Each Chris- 
tian must know and believe the truth explicitly for himself, on 
the direct ground of its own moral and spiritual evidence, and 
not on the mere ground of blind authority. Otherwise faith 
could not be a moral act, nor could it "purify the heart." Faith 
derives its sanctifying power from the truth which it immedi- 
ately apprehends on its own experimental evidence. — John 
xvii. 17, 19; James i. 18; 1 Pet. i. 22. 

20. What is the objection which the Romanists make to this doc- 
trine, on the ground that the church is our only authority for believing 
that the Scriptures are the toord of God ? 

Their objection is, that as we receive the Scriptures as the 
word of God only on the authoritative testimony of the church, 
our faith in the Scriptures is only another form of our faith in 
the church, and the authority of the church, being the founda- 
tion of that of Scripture, must of course be held paramount. 

This is absurd, for two reasons — 

1st. The assumed fact is false. The evidence upon which we 
receive Scripture as the word of God is not the authority of the 
church, but — (1.) God did speak by the apostles and prophets, 
as is evident (a) from the nature of their doctrine, (b) from their 
miracles, (c) their prophecies, (d) our personal experience and 
observation of the power of the truth. (2.) These very writings 
which we possess were written by the apostles, etc., as is evident, 
(«■) from internal evidence, (b) from historical testimony ren- 
dered by all competent cotemporaneous witnesses in the church 
or out of it. 

2d. Even if the fact assumed was true, viz., that we know 
the Scriptures to be from God, on the authority of the church's 
testimony alone, the conclusion they seek to deduce from it 
would be absurd. The witness who proves the identity or pri- 
mogeniture of a prince does not thereby acquire a right to 
govern the kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince. 

21. How is the argument for the necessity of a visible judge, 
derived from the diversities of sects and doctrines among Protestants, 
to be ansicered? 



ROMISH DOCTRIXE REFUTED. 91 

1st. We do not pretend that the private judgment of Pro- 
testants is infallible, but only that when exercised in an humble, 
believing spirit, it always leads to a competent knowledge of 
essential truth. 

2d. The term Protestant is simply negative, and is assumed 
by many infidels who protest as much against the Scriptures 
as they do against Eome. But Bible Protestants, among all 
their circumstantial differences, are, to a wonderful degree. 
agreed upon the essentials of faith and practice. Witness their 
hymns and devotional literature. 

3d. The diversity that does actually exist arises from failure 
in applying faithfully the Protestant principles for which we 
contend. Men do not simply and without prejudice take their 
creed from the Bible. 

4th. The Catholic church, in her last and most authoritative 
utterance through the Council of Trent, has proved herself a 
most indefinite judge. Her doctrinal decisions need an infal- 
lible interpreter infinitely more than the Scriptures. 

22. How may it he shown that the Romanist theory, as well as 
the Protestant, necessarily throws upon the people the obligation of 
private judgment? 

Is there a God? Has he revealed himself? Has he estab- 
lished a church? Is that church an infallible teacher? Is 
private judgment a blind leader? Which of all pretended 
churches is the true one ? Every one of these questions evi- 
dently must be settled in the private judgment of the inquirer, 
before he can, rationally or irrationally, give up his private 
judgment to the direction of the self-asserting church. Thus 
of necessity Piomanists appeal to the Scriptures to prove that 
the Scriptures can not be understood, and address arguments to 
the private judgment of men to prove that private judgment is 
incompetent ; thus basing an argument upon that which it is 
the object of the argument to prove is baseless. 

23. Hoic may it he proved that the people are far more compe- 
tent to discover what the Bible teaches than to decide, by the marks 
insisted upon by the Romanists, which is the true church? 

The Romanists, of necessity, set forth certain marks by 
which the true church is to be discriminated from all counter- 
feits. These are (1.) Unity (through subjection to one visible 
head, the Pope); (2.) Holiness; (3.) Catholicity; (4.) Apostol- 
icity. (involving an uninterrupted succession from the apostles 
of canonically ordained bishops.) — "Cat. of Council of Trent." 
Part L, Cap. 10. Now, the comprehension and intelligent appli- 
cation of these marks involve a great amount of learning and 



92 THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 

intelligent capacity upon the part of the inquirer. He might as 
easily prove himself to be descended from Noah by an unbro- 
ken series of legitimate marriages, as establish the right of Rome 
to the last mark. Yet he can not rationally give up the right 
of studying the Bible for himself until that point is made clear. 
Surely the Scriptures, with their self-evidencing spiritual 
power, make less exhaustive demands upon the resources of 
private judgment. 

Eoman Catholic Docteine as to the Peivate Intebpeetation of 
sceiptuee, and as to teadition, and as to the infallibility of 
the Pope. 

1st. As to the Inteepeetation of Sceipttjee. — "Decrees of Council of 
Trent,'''' Sess. iv. — "Moreover the same sacred and holy Synod . . 
ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by 
the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the 
Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, 
held as authentic; and that no one is to dare or j>resume to reject it 
under any pretext whatever. 

" Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it decrees that 
no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith and of morals 
pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, — wresting the sacred 
Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Script- 
ure contrary to that sense which holy mother Church — whose it is to 
judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures — hath 
held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the 
Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be 
at any time published." 

"Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council" ch. ii. — "And as the things 
which the holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concern- 
ing the interpretation of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebellious 
spirits, have been wrongly explained by some, we, renewing the said 
decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, 
appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held 
as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our holy mother Church hath 
held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense of the 
Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret 
the sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise contrary to the 
unanimous consent of the Fathers." 

2d. As to Teadition. — "Prof. Fidei Tridentino?" (a, d. 1564) ii. and hi. 
"I most steadfastly admit and embrace apostolic and ecclesiastic tradi- 
tions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church. 
I also admit the Holy Scriptures, according to that sense which our holy 
mother Church has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of 
the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever 
take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous 
consent of the Fathers." 

" Council of Trent" Sess. iv. — "And seeing clearly that this truth and 
discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten tradi- 
tions which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, 
or from the apostles themselves the Holy Ghost dictating, have come 
down even unto us transmitted as it were from hand to hand." 

3d. As to the absolute Authoeity of the Pope. — "Dogmatic Deci- 



DECREES OF THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 93 

sions of the Vatican Council," chap. iii. — "Hence we teach and declare that 
by the appointment of our Lord . . the power of jurisdiction of the 
Ronian Pontiff is immediate, to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, 
both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, 
by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit 
not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those 
that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout 
the world. . . We further teach and declare that he is the supreme 
judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs 
to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may 
reopen the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is 
no greater, nor can any lawfully review his judgment. Wherefore they 
err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to ap£>eal from 
the judgments of the Roman Pontiff to an oecumenical council, as to 
an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff." 

4th. CONCERNING THE ABSOLUTE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE AS THE 

Teacher of the Universal Church. — "Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican 
Council," Chap. iv. — "Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition 
received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God 
our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of 
Christian people, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that 
it is a dogma divinely revealed: That the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 
ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor 
of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines 
a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, 
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed 
of the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church 
should be endowed for defining doctrine according to faith and morals; 
and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable 
of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if any one 
— which may God avert — presume to contradict this our definition: let 
him be anathema." 

Cardinal Manning in his "Vatican Council" says, "In this definition 
there are six points to be noted: 

"1st. It defines the meaning of the well-known phrase loquens ex 
cathedra; that is, speaking from the Seat, or place, or with the authority 
of the suj>reme teacher of all Christians, and binding the assent of the 
universal Church. 

"2d. The subject matter of the infallible teaching, namely, the doc- 
trine of faith and morals. 

' ' 3d. The efficient cause of infallibility, that is, the divine assistance 
promised to Peter, and in Peter to his successors. 

"4th. The act to which this divine assistance is attached, the defining 
of doctrines of faith and morals. 

"5th. The extension of this infallible authority to the limits of the 
doctrinal office of the Church. 

" 6th. The dogmatic value of the definitions ex cathedra, namely that 
they are in themselves irreformable, because in themselves infallible, and 
not because the Church, or any part or member of the Church, should 
assent to them." 

"Dogmatic Decrees of Vatican Council," Ch. iv. — "For the Holy Spirit 
was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by his revelation they 
might make known new doctrine; but that by his assistance they might 
inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith 
delivered through the Apostles." 



CHAPTER VI. 

A COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. 

In this chapter will be presented a brief sketch of the main 
contrasting positions of the three rival systems of Pelagianism, 
Semipelagianism, and Augustinianism, or as they are denomin- 
ated in their more completely developed forms, Socinianism, 
Arminianism, and Calvinism — together with an outline of the 
history of their rise and dissemination. 

1. What, in general, was the state of Theological thought during 
the first three centuries ? 

During the first three hundred years which elapsed after 
the death of the apostle John the speculative minds of the 
church were principally engaged in defending the truth of 
Christianity against unbelievers — in combating the Gnostic 
heresies generated by the leaven of Oriental philosophy — and 
in settling definitely the questions which were evolved in the 
controversies concerning the Persons of the Trinity. It does 
not appear that any definite and consistent statements were 
made in that age, as to the origin, nature, and consequences 
of human sin ; nor as to the nature and effects of divine grace ; 
nor of the nature of the redemptive work of Christ, or of the 
method of its application by the Holy Spirit, or of its appropri- 
ation by faith. As a general fact it may be stated, that, as a 
result of the great influence of Origen, the Fathers of the Greek 
•Church pretty unanimously settled down upon a loose Semi- 
pelagianism, denying the guilt of original sin, and maintaining 
the ability of the sinner to predispose himself for, and to co- 
operate with divine grace. And this has continued the char- 
acter of the Greek Anthropology to the present day. The 
same attributes characterized the speculations of the earliest 
writers of the Western Church also, but during the third and 
fourth centuries there appeared a marked tendency among the 
Latin Fathers to those more correct views afterwards trium- 
phantly vindicated by the great Augustine. This tendency 
may be traced most clearly in the writings of Tertullian of 
Carthage, who died circum. 220, and Hilary of Poictiers (f 368) 
and Ambrose of Milan (f 397). 



THE THREE SYSTEMS OF THEOLOGY. 95 

2. By what means lias the Church made advances in the clear 
discrimination of divine truth? And in what ages, and among 
ivhat branches of the Church, have the great doctrines of the Trinity 
and Person of Christ, of sin and grace, and of redemption and the 
application tliereof been severally defined ? 

The Church has always advanced toward clearer concep- 
tions and more accurate definitions of divine truth through a 
process of active controversy. And it has pleased Providence 
that the several great departments of the system revealed in 
the inspired Scriptures should have been most thoroughly dis- 
cussed, and clearly defined in different ages, and in the bosom 
of different nations. 

Thus the profound questions involved in the departments 
of Theology proper and of Christology were investigated by 
men chiefly of Greek origin, and they were authoritatively de- 
fined in Synods held in the Eastern half of the General Church 
during the fourth and immediately following centuries. As 
concerns Theology the consubstantial divinity of Christ was 
defined in the Council of Nice, 325, and the Personality and 
divinity of the Holy Ghost in the first Council of Constantino- 
ple, 381 ; the Filioque clause being added by the Latins at the 
Council of Toledo, 589. As concerns Christology. The Council 
of Ephesus, 431, asserted the personal unity of the Theanthropos. 
The Council of Chalcedon, 451, asserted that the two natures 
remain distinct. The sixth Council of Constantinople, 680, 
asserted that the Lord possessed a human as well as a divine 
will. These decisions have been accepted by the whole Church, 
Greek and Roman, Lutheran and Reformed. 

The questions concerning sin and grace embraced under 
the general head of Anthropology were in the first instance 
most thoroughly investigated by men of Latin origin, and 
definite conclusions were first reached in the controversy of 
Augustine with Pelagius in the first half of the fifth century. 

Questions concerning redemption, and the method of its 
application, embraced under the grand division of Soteriology, 
were never thoroughly investigated until the time of the Refor- 
mation and subsequently by the great theologians of Germany 
and Switzerland. 

Many questions falling under the grand division of Ecclesi- 
ology even yet await their complete solution in the future. 

3. What are the three great systems of theology which have 
always continued to prevail in the Church ? 

Since the revelation given in the Scriptures embraces a 
complete system of truth, every single department must sustain 
many obvious relations, logical and otherwise, to every other as 



96 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. 

the several parts of one whole. The imperfect development, and 
the defective or exaggerated conception of any one doctrine, 
must inevitably lead to confusion and error throughout the 
entire system. For example, Pelagian views as to man's estate 
by nature always tend to coalesce with Sociuian views as to 
the Person and work of Christ. And Semipelagian views as to 
sin and grace are also irresistibly attracted by, and in turn 
attract Arminian views as to the divine attributes, the nature 
of the Atonement, and the work of the Spirit. 

There are, in fact, as we might have anticipated, but two 
complete self-consistent systems of Christian theology possible. 

1st. On the right hand, Augustinianism completed in Cal- 
vinism. 2d. On the left hand, Pelagianism completed in Socin- 
ianism. And 3d. Arminianism comes between these as the 
system of compromises, and is developed Semipelagianism. 

In the common usage of terms Socinianism is principally 
applied as the designation of those elements of the false system 
which relate to the Trinity of the Person of Christ; the terms 
Pelagianism and Semipelagianism are applied to the more ex- 
treme or the more moderate departures from the truth under 
the head of Anthropology ; and the term Arminianism is used to 
designate the less extreme errors concerned with the Depart- 
ment of Soteriology. 

4. When and where and by whom were the fundamental prin- 
ciples of the two great antagonistic schools of theology first clearly 
discriminated ? 

The contrasted positions of the Augustinian and Pelagian 
systems were first taught out and defined through the contro- 
versies maintained by the eminent men whose name they bear, 
during the first third of the fifth century. 

Augustine was bishop of Hippo in Northern Africa from 
a. d. 395 to a. d. 430. Pelagius, whose family name was Morgan, 
was a British monk. He was assisted in his controversies by 
his disciples Coelestius and Julian of Eclanum in Italy. 

The positions maintained by Pelagius were generally con- 
demned by the representatives of the whole Church, and have 
ever since been held by all denominations, except professed 
Socinians, to be fatal heresy. They were condemned by the 
two councils held at Carthage a. d. 407 and a. d. 416, by the 
Council held at Milevum in Numidia a. d. 416; by the popes 
Innocent and Zosimus, and by the (Ecumenical Council held at 
Ephesus a. d. 431. This speedy and universal repudiation of 
Pelagianism proves that while the views of the early Fathers 
upon this class of questions were very imperfect, nevertheless 
the system taught by Augustine must have been in all essen 



AUGUSTINIANISM AND PELAGIANISM COMPARED. 97 

tials the same with the faith of the Church as a whole from 
the beginning. 

5. State in contrast the main distinguishing positions of t7w Au- 
gustinian and Pelagian systems. 

"1st. As to Original Sin.* 

u Augustinianism. By the sin of Adam, in whom all men 
together sinned, sin and all the other positive punishments of 
Adam's sin came into the world. By it human nature has been 
both physically and morally corrupted. Every man brings into 
the world with him a nature already so corrupt, that it can do 
nothing but sin. The propagation of this quality of his nature 
is by concupiscence. 

"Pelagianism. By his transgression, Adam injured only him- 
self, not his posterity. In respect to his moral nature, every 
man is born in precisely the same condition in which Adam 
was created. There is therefore no original sin. 

" 2d. As to Free will. 

"Augustinianism. By Adam's transgression the freedom of 
the human will has been entirely lost. In his present corrupt 
state man can will and do only evil. 

u Pelagianism. Man's will is free. Every man has the power 
to will and to do good as well as the opposite. Hence it de- 
pends upon himself whether he be good or evil. 

" 3d. As to Grace. 

" Augustinianism. If nevertheless man in his present state, 
wills and does good, it is merely the work of grace. It is an 
inward, secret, and wonderful operation of God upon man. It 
is a preceding as well as an accompanying work. By pre- 
ceding grace, man attains faith, by which he comes to an 
insight of good, and by which power is given him to will the 
good. He needs co-operating grace for the performance of 
every individual good act. As man can do nothing without 
grace, so he can do nothing against it. It is irresistible. And 
as man by nature has no merit at all, no respect at all can be 
had to man's moral disposition, in imparting grace, but God 
acts according to his own free will. 

u Pelagianism, Although by free will, which is a gift of God, 
man has the capacity of willing and doing good without God's 
special aid, yet for the easier performance of it, God revealed 
the law; for the easier performance, the instruction and exam- 
ple of Christ aid him ; and for the easier performance, even the 
supernatural operations of grace are imparted to him. Grace, 
in the most limited sense (gracious influence) is given to those 

*" Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism, " by G. F. 
Wiggers, D.D., Translated by Kev. Kalph Emerson, pp. 268-270. 

7 



98 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. 

only who deserve it by the faithful employment of their own 
powers. But man can resist it. 

"4th. As to Predestination and Kedemption. 

u Augustinianism. From eternity, God made a free and un- 
conditional decree to save a few * from the mass that was cor- 
rupted and subjected to damnation. To those whom he pre- 
destinated to this salvation, he gives the requisite means for 
the purpose. But on the rest, who do not belong to this small* 
number of the elect, the merited ruin falls. Christ came into 
the world and died for the elect only. 

" Pelagianism. God's decree of election and reprobation is 
founded on prescience. Those of whom God foresaw that they 
would keep his commands, he predestinated to salvation; the 
others to damnation. Christ's redemption is general. But 
those only need his atoning death who have actually sinned. 
All, however, by his instruction and example, may be led to 
higher perfection and virtue." 

6. What was the origin of the Middle or Semipelagian system ? 

In the mean time, while the Pelagian controversy was at 
its height, John Cassian, of Syrian extraction and educated in 
the Eastern Church, having removed to Marseilles, in France, 
for the purpose of advancing the interests of monkery in that 
region, began to give publicity to a scheme of doctrine occu- 
pying a middle position between the systems of Augustine and 
Pelagius. This system, whose advocates were called Massilians 
from the residence of their chief, and afterward Semipelagians 
by the Schoolmen, is in its essential principles one with that 
system which is now denominated Arminianism, a statement 
of which will be given in a subsequent part of this chapter. 
Faustus, bishop of Kiez, in France, from a. d. 427 to a. d. 480, 
was one of the most distinguished and successful advocates of 
this doctrine, which was permanently accepted by the Eastern 
Church, and for a time was widely disseminated throughout 
the western also, until it was condemned by the Synods of 
Orange and Valence, a. d. 529. 

7. What is the relation of Augustinianism to Calvinism and 
of Semipelagianism to Arminianism ? 

After this time Augustinianism became the recognized or- 
thodoxy of the Western Church, and the name of no other 
uninspired man exerts such universal influence among Papists 
and Protestants alike. If any human name ought to be used 
to designate a system of divinely revealed truth, the phrase 

* The doctrine of Augustine does not by any means involve the conclusion 
that the elect are "few" or "a small number." 



DURING THE SCHOLASTIC AGE. 99 

Augustinianism as opposed to Pelagianism properly designates 
all those elements of faith which the whole world of Evangel- 
ical Christians hold in common. On the other hand Augustin- 
ianism as opposed to Semipelagianism properly designates that 
system commonly called Calvinism — while Cassianism would 
be the proper historical designation of that Middle or Semipe- 
lagian Scheme now commonly styled Arminianism. 

8. Hoiv were parties divided with respect to these great systems 
among the Schoolmen, and how are tJwy in the modern Papal 
Church ? 

x'Vfter the lapse of the dark ages, during which all active 
speculation slumbered, the great Thomas Aquinas, an Italian 
by birth, a. d. 1224, and a monk of the order of St. Dominic, 
Doctor Angelicus, advocated with consummate ability the Au- 
gustinian system of theology in that cumbrous and artificial 
manner which characterized the Schoolmen. John Duns Sco- 
tus, a native of Britain, a. d. 1265, a monk of the order of St. 
Francis, Doctor Subtilis, was in that age the ablest advocate 
of the system then styled Semipelagian. The controversies 
then revived were perpetuated for many ages, the Dominicans 
and the Thomists in general advocating unconditional election 
and efficacious grace, and the Franciscans and the Scotists in 
general advocating conditional election and the inalienable 
power of the human will to co-operate with or to resist divine 
grace. The same disputes under various party names continue 
to agitate the Romish Church since the Reformation, although 
the genius of her ritualistic system, and the predominance of 
the Jesuits in her councils, have secured within her bounds 
the almost universal prevalence of Semipelagianism. 

The general Council, commenced at Trent, a. d. 1546, at- 
tempted to form a non-committal Creed that would satisfy the 
adherents of both systems. Accordingly the Dominicans and 
Franciscans have both claimed that their respective views were 
sanctioned by that Synod. The truth is that while the general 
and indefinite statements of doctrine to be found among its 
canons are often Augustinian in form, the more detailed and 
accurate explanations which follow these are uniformly Semi- 
pelagian. — Principal Cunningham's "Historical Theology," vol. 
1, pp. 483-495. 

The order of the Jesuits, founded by Ignatius Loyola, a. d. 
1541, has always been identified with Semipelagian Theology. 
Lewis Molina, a Spanish Jesuit, a. d. 1588, the inventor of the 
distinction denoted by the term " Scientia Media," attained to 
such distinction as its advocate, that its adherents in the Papal 
Church have been for ages styled Molinists. In 1638 Janse- 



100 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. 

nius, Bishop of Ypres in the Netherlands died leaving behind 
him his great work, Augustinus, wherein he clearly unfolded 
and established by copious extracts the true theological system 
of Augustine. This book occasioned very wide-spread conten- 
tions, was ferociously opposed by the Jesuits, and condemned 
by the Bulls of Popes Innocent X. and Alexander VIL, a. d. 
1653 and 1656 — Avhich last were followed in 1713 by the more 
celebrated Bull "imigenitus" of Clement XL, condemning the 
New Testament Commentary of Quesnel. The Augustinians 
in that Church were subsequently called Jansenists, and had 
their principal seat in Holland and Belgium and at Port Koyal 
near Paris. They have numbered among them some very illus- 
trious names, as Tillemont, Arnauld, Nicole, Pascal, and Quesnel. 
These controversies between the Dominicans and Molinists, the 
Jansenists and Jesuits, have continued even to our own time, 
although at present Semipelagianism shares with Jesuitism in 
its almost unlimited sway in the Papal Church, which has def- 
initely triumphed in the Vatican Council, 1870. 

9. What is the position of the Lutheran Church with relation to 
these great systems ? 

Luther, a monk of the order of Augustine, and an earnest 
disciple of that father, taught a system of faith agreeing in 
spirit and in all essential points with that afterwards more sys- 
tematically developed by Calvin. The only important point in 
which he differed from the common consensus of the Calvinistic 
Churches related to the literal physical presence of the entire 
person of Christ in, ivilh, and under the elements in the Eucharist. 
With these opinions of Luther Melanchthon appears to have 
agreed at the time he published the first edition of his " Loci 
Communes." His opinions however as to the freedom of man 
and the sovereignty of divine grace were subsequently grad- 
ually modified. After the death of Luther, at the Leipsic Con- 
ference in 1548, he explicitly declared his agreement with the 
Synergists, who maintain that in the regenerating act the hu- 
man will co-operates with divine grace. Melanchthon, on the 
other hand, held a view of the relation of the sign to the grace 
signified thereby in the Sacraments, much more nearly con- 
forming to opinions of the disciples of Zwingle and Calvin 
than generally prevailed in his own Church. His position on 
both these points gave great offence to the Old Lutherans, 
and occasioned protracted and bitter controversies. Finally, 
the Old or Strict Lutheran party prevailed over their antago- 
nists, and their views received a complete scientific statement 
in the "Formula Concordise " published 1580. Although this re- 
markable document never attained a position by the side of 



THE LUTHERAN SYSTEM. 101 

the Augsburg Confession and Apology as the universally rec- 
ognized Confession of the Lutheran Churches, it may justly be 
taken as the best available witness as to what strictly Lutheran 
theology when developed into a complete system really is. 

The Characteristics of Lutheran theology as contrasted with 
that of the Reformed Churches may be briefly stated under the 
following heads : 

1st. As to Theology proper and Christology the only points 
in which it differs from Calvinism are the following : 

(1.) As to the divine attributes of sovereign foreordination, 
they hold that as far as it is concerned with the actions of 
moral agents it is limited to those actions which are morally 
good, while it sustains no determining relation to those which 
are bad. God foreknows all events of whatever kind; he foreor- 
dains all the actions of necessary agents, and the good actions 
of free agents — but nothing else. 

(2.) As to Christology, they hold that in virtue of the hypo- 
statical union the human element of Christ's person partakes 
with the divine in at least some of its peculiar attributes. 
Thus his human soul shares in the omniscience and omnipo- 
tence of his divinity, and his body in its omnipresence, and 
together they have the power of giving life to the truly believ- 
ing recipient of the sacrament. 

2d. As to Anthropology, they hold views identical with those 
held by the staunchest advocates of the Reformed Theology — 
as for instance the antecedent and immediate imputation of 
Adam's public sin ; the total moral depravity of all his descend- 
ants from birth and by nature, and their absolute inability to 
do aright in their own strength any thing which pertains to 
their relation to God. 

3d. As to the great central elements of Soteriology, they 
agree with the Reformed with great exactness as to the nature 
and necessity of the expiatory work of Christ; as to forensic 
justification through the imputation to the believer of both the 
active and passive obedience of Christ; as to the nature and 
office of justifying faith ; as to the sole agency of divine grace 
in the regeneration of the sinner, with which, in the first in- 
stance, the dead soul is unable to co-operate ; as to God's eter- 
nal and sovereign election of believers in Christ, not because 
of any thing foreseen in them, but because of his own gracious 
will — and consequently as to the fact that the salvation of 
every soul really saved is to be attributed purely and solely to 
the grace of God, and not in any degree to the co-operating 
will or merit of the man himself. 

At the same time they teach, with obvious logical incon- 
sistency, that the grace of the gospel is in divine intention 



102 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. 

absolutely universal. Christ died equally and in the same 
sense for all men. He gives grace alike to all men. Those 
who are lost are lost because they resist the grace. Those 
who are saved owe their salvation simply to the grace they 
have in common with the lost — to the very same grace — not 
to a greater degree of grace nor to a less degree of sin — not to 
their own improvement of grace, but simply to the grace itself. 
According to them God sovereignly elects all those who are 
saved, but he does not sovereignly pass over those who are 
lost. He gives the same grace to all men, and the difference 
is determined by the persistent resistance of those who a,re lost. 
The grand distinction of Lutheranism however relates to 
their doctrine of the Eucharist. They hold to the real phys- 
ical presence of the Lord in the Eucharist, in, with, and under 
the elements, and that the grace signified and conveyed by 
the sacraments is necessary to salvation, and conveyed ordi- 
narily by no other means. Hence the theology and church 
life of the strict Lutherans centre in the sacraments. They 
differ from the high sacramental party in the Episcopal Church 
chiefly in the fact that they ignore the dogma of apostolical 
succession, and the traditions of the early church. 

10. Into ivhat two great parties has the Protestant world alivays 
been divided ? 

The whole Protestant world from the time of the Reforma- 
tion has been divided into two great families of churches, clas- 
sified severally as Lutheran, or those whose character Avas 
derived from Luther and Melanchthon ; and as Reformed, or 
those who have received the characteristic impress of Calvin. 
The Lutheran family of churches comprises all of those Prot- 
estants of Germany, of Hungary, and the Baltic provinces of 
Russia, who adhere to the Augsburg Confession, together with 
the national churches of Denmark and of Norway and Sweden, 
and the large denomination of the name in America. These 
are estimated as amounting to a population of about twenty- 
five millions of pure Lutherans, while the Evangelical Church 
of Prussia, which was formed of a political union of the adhe- 
rents of the two Confessions, embraces probably eleven millions 
and a half. Their Symbolical Books are the Augsburg Con- 
fession and Apology, the Articles of Smalcald, Luther's Larger 
and Smaller Catechism, and, as received by the Stricter party, 
the Formula Concordise. The Calvinistic or Reformed churches 
embrace, in the strict usage of the term, all those Protestant 
Churches which derive their Theology from Geneva; and among 
these, because of obvious qualifying conditions, the Episcopal 
Churches of England, Ireland, and America form a subdivision 



UNITARIANISM. 103 

by themselves; and the Wesleyan Methodists, who are usually 
classed among the Reformed because they were historically 
developed from that stock, are even yet more distinctly than 
the parent church of England removed from the normal type 
of the general class. In a general sense, however, this class 
comprises all those churches of Germany which subscribe to 
the Heidelburg Catechism, the churches of Switzerland, France, 
Holland, England, and Scotland, the Independents and Baptists 
of England and America, and the various branches of the Pres- 
byterian Church in England, Ireland, and America. These em- 
brace about eight millions German Reformed; two millions in 
the Reformed church of Hungary ; twelve millions and a half 
Episcopalians ; Presbyterians, six millions ; Methodists, three 
millions and a half; Baptists, four millions and a half; and 
Independents, one million and a half; — in all about thirty-eight 
millions. 

The principal confessions of the Reformed Church are the 
Gallic, Belgic, 2d Helvetic, and Scotch Confessions ; the Heidel- 
burg Catechism ; the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of Eng- 
land ; the Canons of the Synod of Dort, and the Confessiori and 
Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly. 

11. State the Origin of the Unitarian Heresy. 

In the early church the Ebionites, a Jewish-Gnostic Chris- 
tian sect, were the only representatives of those in modern times 
called Socinians. A party among them were called Elkesaites. 
Their ideas, with special modifications, are found expressed in 
the "Clementine Homilies," written about a. d. 150 in Ori- 
ental Syria. The most distinguished humanitarians in the early 
church were the two Theodotuses of Rome, both laymen, Arte- 
mon (fl80) and Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch (260-270), 
deposed by a Council held 269. Most of these admitted the 
supernatural birth of Christ, but maintained that he was a mere 
man, honored by a special divine influence. They admitted an 
apotheosis or relative deification of Christ consequent upon his 
earthly achievements. (Dr. E. De Pressense, "Early Years of 
Christianity," Part 3, bk. 1, chs. 3 and 5). 

Cerinthus, who lived during the last of the first and the 
first of the second century, held that Jesus was a mere man 
born of Mary and Joseph, that the Christ or Logos came down 
upon him in the shape of a dove at his baptism, when he was 
raised to the dignity of the son of God, and wrought miracles, 
etc. The Logos left the man Jesus to suffer alone at his cruci- 
fixion. The resurrection also was denied. 

They were succeeded by the Arians in the fourth century. 
During the Middle Ages there remained no party within the 



104 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. 

church that openly denied the supreme divinity of our Lord. 
In modern times Unitarianism revived at the period of the 
Reformation through the agency of Lselius Socinus of Italy. 
It was carried by him into Switzerland and existed there as a 
doctrine professed by a few conspicuous heretics from 1525 to 
1560. The most prominent of its professors were the Socini, 
Servetus, and Ochino. It existed as an organized church at 
Eacow in Poland, where the exiled heretics found a refuge 
from 1539 to 1658, when the Socinians were driven out of 
Poland by the Jesuits, and passing into Holland became ab- 
sorbed in the Remonstrant or Arminian Churches. In 1609 
Schmetz drew up from materials afforded by the teaching of 
Faustus Socinus, the nephew of Lselius, and of J. Crellius, the 
Racovian Catechism, which is the standard of Socinianism (see 
Ree's translation, 1818.) After their dispersion, Andrew Wisso- 
watius and others collected the most important writings of their 
leading theologians under the title "Bibliotheca Fratrum Polo- 
norum." Socinianism was developed by these writers with 
consummate ability, and crystalized into its most perfect form, 
as a logical system. It is purely Unitarian in its theology — 
Humanitarian in its Christology, Pelagian in its Anthropology — 
and its Soteriology was developed in perfect logical and ethical 
consistency with those elements. A statement of its charac- 
teristic positions will be found below. 

It reappeared again as a doctrine held by a few isolated men 
in England in the seventeenth century. During the eighteenth 
century a number of degenerate Presbyterian Churches in Eng- 
land lapsed into Socinianism, and towards the end of the same 
century a larger number of Congregational Churches in Eastern 
Massachusetts followed their example, and these together con- 
stitute the foundation of the modern Unitarian Denomination. 

" Its last form is a modification of the old Socinianism 
formed under the pressure of evangelical religion on the one 
hand, and of rationalistic criticism on the other. Priestley, 
Channing, and J. Martineau are the examples of the successive 
phases of Modern Unitarianism. Priestley, of the old Socinian- 
ism, building itself upon a sensational philosophy; Channing, 
of an attempt to gain a large development of the spiritual 
element; Martineau, of the elevation of view induced by the 
philosophy of Cousin, and the introduction of the idea of his- 
torical progress in religious ideas." — "Farrar's Crit. Hist, of 
Free Thought," Bampton Lecture, 1862. 

12. At ivliat date and under what circumstances did modem 
Arminianism arise ? 

James Arminius, professor of theology in the university of 



THE REMONSTRANTS. 105, 

Ley den from 1602 until his death in 1609, although a minis- 
ter of the Calvinistic Church of Holland, at first secretly, and 
afterwards more openly, advocated that scheme of theological 
opinion which has ever subsequently been designated by his 
name. These views were rapidly diffused, and at the same 
time strongly opposed by the principal men in the church. 
His disciples, consequently, about a year after his death formed 
themselves into an organized party, and in that capacity pre- 
sented a Remonstrance to the States of Holland and West Fries- 
land, praying to be allowed to hold their places in the church 
without being subjected by the ecclesiastical courts to vexatious 
examinations as to their orthodoxy. From the fact that the ut- 
terance of this Eemonstrance was their first combined act as a 
party, they were afterwards known in history as Remonstrants. 

Soon after this the Remonstrants, for the sake of defining 
their position, presented to the authorities five Articles express- 
ing then- belief on the subject of Predestination and Grace. This 
is the origin of the famous " Five Points " in the controversy 
between Calvinism and Arminianism. Very soon however the 
controversy took a much wider range, and the Arminians were 
forced by logical consistency to teach radically erroneous views 
with respect to the nature of sin, original sin. imputation, the 
nature of the Atonement, and Justification by faith. Some of 
their later writers carried the rationalistic spirit inherent in 
their system to its legitimate results in a hardly qualified 
Pelagianism, and some were even suspected of Socinianism. 

As all other means had failed to silence the innovators, 
the States General called together a General Synod at Dort in 
Holland, which held its sessions in the year 1618-1619. It 
consisted of pastors, elders, and theological professors from the 
churches of Holland, and deputies from the churches of Eng- 
land, Scotland, Hesse, Bremen, the Palatinate and Switzerland: 
the promised attendance of delegates from the French churches 
being prevented by an interdict of their king. The foreign 
delegates present were nineteen Presbyterians from Reformed 
churches on the Continent, and one from Scotland, and four 
Episcopalians from the church of England headed by the bishop 
of Llandaff. This Synod unanimously condemned the doctrines 
of the Arminians, and in their Articles confirmed the common 
Calvinistic faith of the Reformed churches. The most distin- 
guished Remonstrant Theologians who succeeded Arminius 
were Episcopius, Curcelleeus, Limborch, Le Clerc, Wetstein, 
and the illustrious jurisconsult Grotius. 

The denomination of Methodists in Great Britain and Amer- 
ica is the only large Protestant body in the world with an 
avowedly Arminian Creed. Their Arminianism, however, as 



106 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. 

presented by their standard writer, Richard Watson, an incom- 
parably more competent theologian than Wesley, is far less 
removed from the Calvinism of the Westminster Assembly 
than the system of the later Remonstrants, and should always 
be designated by the qualified phrase " Evangelical Arminian- 
ism." In the hands of Watson the Anthropology and Soteri- 
ology of Arminianism are in a general sense nearly assimilated 
to the corresponding provinces of Lutheranism, and of the Cal- 
vinism of Baxter, and of the French School of the seventeenth 
century. 

13. Give an outline of the main positions of tlue Socinian System. 

Theology and Christology. 

1st. Divine Unity. 

(a.) This unity inconsistent with any personal distinctions 
in the Godhead. 

(b.) Christ is a mere man. 

(c.) The Holy Ghost is an impersonal divine influence. 

2d. Divine Attributes. 

(a.) There is no principle of vindicatory justice in God. 
Nothing to prevent his acceptance of sinners on the simple 
ground of repentance. 

(b.) Future contingent events are essentially unknowable. 
The foreknowledge of God does not extend to such events. 

Anthropology. 

(a.) Man was created without positive moral character. 
The " image of God " in which man was said to be created did 
not include holiness. 

(p.) Adam in eating the forbidden fruit committed actual 
sin, and thereby incurred the divine displeasure, but he retained 
nevertheless the same moral nature and tendencies with which 
he was created, and he transmitted these intact to his posterity. 

(c.) The guilt of Adam's sin is not imputed. . 

(d.) Man is now as able by nature to discharge all his obli- 
gations as he ever was. The circumstances under which man's 
character is now formed are more unfavorable than in Adam's 
case, and therefore man is weak. But God is infinitely mer- 
ciful; and obligation is graded by ability. Man was created 
naturally mortal and would have died had he sinned or not. 

SOTERIOLOGY. 

The great object of Christ's mission was to teach and to 
give assurance with respect to those truths concerning which 
the conclusions of mere human reason are problematical. This 
he does both by doctrine and example. 

1st. Christ did not execute the office of priest upon earth; 
but only in heaven, and there in a very indefinite sense. 



THE SOCINIAN SYSTEM. 107 

2d. The main office of Christ was prophetical. He taught 
a new law. Gave an example of a holy life. Taught the per- 
sonality of God. And illustrated the doctrine of a future life 
by his own resurrection. 

3d. His death was necessary only as a condition unavoid- 
ably prerequisite to his resurrection. It was also designed to 
make a moral impression upon sinners, disposing them to re- 
pentance on account of sin, and assuring them of the clemency 
of God. No propitiation of divine justice was necessary, nor 
would it be possible by means of vicarious suffering. 

ESCATOLOGT. 

1st. In the intermediate period between death and the res- 
urrection the soul remains unconscious. 

2d. " For it is evident from the authorities cited, that they 
(the older Socinians), equally with others, constantly maintain 
that there will be a resurrection both of the just and of the 
unjust, and that the latter shall be consigned to everlasting 
punishment, but the former admitted to everlasting life." — B. 
Wissowatius. 

"The doctrine of the proper eternity of hell torments is 
rejected by most Unitarians of the present day (1818), as in 
their opinion wholly irreconcilable with the divine goodness, 
and unwarranted by the Scriptures. In reference to the future 
fate of the wicked, some hold that after the resurrection they 
will be annihilated or consigned to ' everlasting destruction ' 
in the literal sense of the words: but most have received the 
doctrine of universal restoration, which maintains that all men, 
however depraved their characters may have been in this life, 
will, by a corrective discipline, suited hi the measure of its 
severity to the nature of each particular case, be brought ulti- 
mately to goodness and consequently to happiness." — Rees's 
" Racovian Catechism," pp. 367, 368. 

ECCLESIOLOGY. 

1st. The church is simply a voluntary society. Its object 
mutual improvement. Its common bond similarity of senti- 
ments and pursuits'. Its rule is human reason. 

2d. The Sacraments are simply commemorative and teach- 
ing ordinances. 

14. Give an outlvne of tlie main features of the Arminian System. 

Divine Attributes. 

1st. They admit that vindicatory justice is a divine at- 
tribute, but hold that it is relaxable, rather optional than 
essential, rather belonging to administrative policy than to 
necessary principle. 

2d. They admit that God foreknows all events without ex- 



108 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. 

ception. They invented the distinction expressed by the term 
Scientia Media to explain God's certain foreknowledge of future 
events, the futurition of which remain undetermined by his will, 
or any other antecedent cause. 

3d. They deny that God's foreordination extends to the voli- 
tions of free agents, and hold that the eternal election of men 
to salvation is not absolute, but conditioned upon foreseen faith 
and obedience. 

Anthropology. 

1st. Moral character can not be created but is determined 
only by previous self-decision. 

2d. Both liberty and responsibility necessarily involve pos- 
session of power to the contrary. 

3d. They usually deny the imputation of the guilt of Adam's 
first sin. 

4th. The strict Arminians deny total depravity, and admit 
only the moral enfeeblement of nature. Arminius and Wesley 
were more orthodox but less self-consistent. 

5th. They deny that man has ability to originate holy action 
or to carry it on in his own unassisted strength — but affirm that 
every man has power to co-operate with, or to resist "common 
grace." That which alone distinguishes the saint from the sin- 
ner is his own use or abuse of grace. 

6th. They regard gracious influence as rather moral and 
suasory than as a direct and effectual exertion of the new cre- 
ative energy of God. 

7th. They maintain the liability of the saint at every stage 
of his earthly career to fall from grace. 

SOTERIOLOGY. 

1st, They admit that Christ made a vicarious offering of 
himself in place of sinful men, and yet deny that he suffered 
either the literal penalty of the law, or a full equivalent for it, 
and maintain that his sufferings were graciously accepted as a 
substitute for the penalty. 

2d. They hold that not only with respect to its sufficiency 
and adaptation, but also in the intention of the Father in giv- 
ing the Son, and of the Son in dying, Christ died in the same 
sense for all men alike. 

3d. That the acceptance of Christ's satisfaction in the place 
of the infliction of the penalty on sinners in person involves a 
relaxation of the divine law. 

4th. That Christ's satisfaction enables God in consistency 
with his character, and the interests of his general government, 
to offer salvation on easier terms. The gospel hence is a new 
law, demanding faith and evangelical obedience in the stead 
of the original demand of perfect obedience. 



THE CALVINISTIC SYSTEM. 109 

5th. Hence Christ's work does not actually save any, but 
makes the salvation of all men possible — removes legal obsta- 
cles out of the way — does not secure faith but makes salvation 
available on the condition of faith. 

6th. Sufficient influences of the Holy Spirit, and sufficient 
opportunities and means of grace are granted to all men. 

7th. It is possible for and obligatory upon all men in this 
life to attain to evangelical perfection — which is explained as 
a being perfectly sincere — a being animated by perfect love 
— and a doing all that is required of us under the gospel 
dispensation. 

8th. With respect to the heathen some have held that in 
some way or other the gospel is virtually, if not in form, 
preached to all men. Others have held that in the future 
world there are three conditions corresponding to the three 
great classes of men as they stand related to the gospel in this 
world — the Status Credentium; the Status Incredulorum; the 
Status Ignorantium. 

15. Give a brief outline of the main features of the Calvinistic 
System. 

Theology. 

1st. God is an absolute sovereign, infinitely wise, righteous, 
benevolent, and powerful, determining from eternity the cer- 
tain futurition of all events of every class according to the 
counsel of his own will. 

2d. Vindicatory Justice is an essential and immutable per- 
fection of the divine nature demanding the full punishment of 
all sin, the exercise of which can not be relaxed or denied by 
the divine will. 

Christology. 

The Mediator is one single, eternal, divine person, at once 
very God, and very man. In the unity of the Theanthropic 
person the two natures remain pure and unmixed, and retain 
each its separate and incommunicable attributes distinct. The 
personality is that of the eternal and unchangeable Logos. 
The human nature is impersonal. All mediatorial actions in- 
volve the concurrent exercise of the energies of both natures 
according to their several properties in the unity of the single 
person. 

Anthropology. 

1st. God created man by an immediate fiat of omnipotence 
and in a condition of physical, intellectual, and moral fault- 
lessness, with a positively formed moral character. 

2d. The guilt of Adam's public sin is by a judicial act of 
God immediately charged to the account of each of his de- 



110 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. 

scendants from the moment he begins to exist antecedently to 
any act of his own. 

3d. Hence men come into existence in a condition of con- 
demnation deprived of those influences of the Holy Spirit upon 
which their moral and spiritual life depends. 

4th. Hence they come into moral agency deprived of that 
original righteousness which belonged to human nature as 
created in Adam, and with an antecedent prevailing tendency 
in their nature to sin, which tendency in them is of the nature 
of sin, and worthy of punishment. 

5th. Man's nature since the fall retains its constitutional 
faculties of reason, conscience, and free-will, and hence man 
continues a responsible moral agent, but he is nevertheless 
spiritually dead, and totally averse to spiritual good, and abso- 
lutely unable to change his own heart, or adequately to dis- 
charge any of those duties which spring out of his relation 
to God. 

SOTERIOLOGY. 

1st. The salvation of man is absolutely of grace. God was 
free in consistency with the infinite perfections of his nature to 
save none, few, many, or all, according to his sovereign good 
pleasure. 

2d. Christ acted as Mediator in pursuance of an eternal cov- 
enant formed between the Father and the Son, according to 
which he was put in the law -place of his own elect people as 
their personal substitute, and as such by his obedience and 
suffering he discharged all the obligations growing out of their 
federal relations to law — by his sufferings vicariously enduring 
their penal debt — by his obedience vicariously discharging 
those covenant demands, upon which their eternal well-being 
was suspended — thus fulfilling the requirements of the law, 
satisfying the justice of God, and securing the eternal salvation 
of those for whom he died. 

3d. Hence, by his death he purchased the saving influences 
of the Holy Spirit for all for whom he died. And the Holy 
Spirit infallibly applies the redemption purchased by Christ to 
all for whom he intended it, in the precise time and under the 
precise conditions predetermined in the eternal Covenant of 
Grace — and he does this by the immediate and intrinsically 
efficacious exercise of his power, operating directly within 
them, and in the exercises of their renewed nature bringing 
them to act faith and repentance and all gracious obedience. 

4th. Justification is a judicial act of God, whereby imputing 
to us the perfect righteousness of Christ, including his active 
and passive obedience, he proceeds to regard and treat us accord- 
ingly, pronouncing all the penal claims of law to be satisfied, 



CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE. Ill 

and us to be graciously entitled to all the immunities and 
rewards conditioned in the original Adamic covenant upon 
perfect obedience. 

5th. Although absolute moral perfection is unattainable in 
this life, and assurance is not of the essence of faith, it is never- 
theless possible and obligatory upon each believer to seek after 
and attain to a full assurance of his own personal salvation, 
and leaving the things that are behind to strive after perfection 
in all things. 

6th. Although if left to himself every believer would fall in 
an instant, and although most believers do experience tem- 
porary seasons of backsliding, yet God by the exercise of his 
grace in their hearts, in pursuance of the provisions of the 
eternal Covenant of Grace and of the purpose of Christ in dying, 
infallibly prevents even the weakest believer from final apostasy. 



CHAPTER VII. 

CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. 

As Creeds and Confessions, their uses and their history, form 
a distinct subject of study by themselves, they will be consid- 
ered together in this chapter, while references will be found 
under the several chapters of this work to the particular Creed 
in which the particular doctrine is most clearly or authorita- 
tively denned. 

On this entire subject consult the admirable historical and 
critical work of Dr. Philip Schaff of Union Theological Seminary, 
New York — the " Creeds of Christendom." In the first volume he 
presents a history of the authorship and occasion of each Creed 
or Confession and a critical estimate of its contents and value. 
In volumes second and third he gives the text of all the 
principal creeds in two languages. 

1. Why are Creeds and Confessions necessary, and how have 
they been produced ? 

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament having been 
given by inspiration of God, are for man in his present state 
the only and the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice. This 
divine word, therefore, is the only standard of doctrine which 
has any intrinsic authority binding the consciences of men. All 
other standards are of value or authority only as they teach 
what the Scriptures teach. 

But it is the inalienable duty and necessity of men to arrive 
at the meaning of the Scriptures in the use of their natural 
faculties, and by the ordinary instruments of interpretation. 
Since all truth is self-consistent in all its parts, and since the 
human reason always instinctively strives to reduce all the 
elements of knowledge with which it grapples to logical unity 
and consistency, it follows that men must more or less formally 
construct a system of faith out of the materials presented in 
the Scriptures. Every student of the Bible necessarily does 



THEIR ORIGIN AND USES. 113 

this in the very process of understanding and digesting its 
teaching, and all such students make it manifest that they 
have found, in one way or another, a system of faith as com- 
plete as for him has been possible, by \he very language he 
uses in prayer, praise, and ordinary religious discourse. If 
men refuse the assistance afforded by the statements of doc- 
trine slowly elaborated and defined by the church, they must 
severally make out their own creed by their own unaided wis- 
dom. The real question between the church and the impugn- 
ers of human creeds, is not, as the latter often pretend, be- 
tween the Avord of God and the creed of man, but between 
the tried and proved faith of the collective body of God's peo- 
ple, and the private judgment and the unassisted wisdom of 
the individual objector. As it would have been anticipated, 
it is a matter of fact that the church has advanced very grad- 
ually in this work of accurately interpreting Scripture, and 
defining the great doctrines which compose the system of 
truths it reveals. The attention of the church has been espe- 
cially directed to the study of one doctrine in one age, and of an- 
other doctrine in a subsequent age. And as she has gradually 
advanced in the clear discrimination of gospel truth, she has 
at different periods set down an accurate statement of the 
results of her new attainments in a creed, or Confession of 
Faith, for the purpose of preservation and of popular instruc- 
tion, of discriminating and defending the truth from the per- 
version of heretics and the attacks of infidels, and of affording 
a common bond of faith, and rule of teaching and discipline. 

The ancient creeds of the universal Church were formed by 
the first four oecumenical or general councils, except the so- 
called Apostle's Creed, gradually formed from the baptismal 
confessions in use in the different churches of the West, and 
the so-called Athanasian Creed, which is of private and un- 
known authorship. The great authoritative Confession of the 
Papal Church was produced by the oecumenical council held 
at Trent, 1545. The mass of the principal Protestant Confes- 
sions were the production of single individuals or of small 
circles of individuals, e. g., the Augsburg Confession and Apol- 
ogy, the 2d Helvetic Confession, the Heidelburg Catechism, 
the Old Scotch Confession, the Thirty-nine Articles of the 
Church of England, etc. Two, however, of the most valuable 
and generally received Protestant Confessions were produced 
by large and venerable Assemblies of learned divines, namely : 
the Canons of the international Synod of Dort, and the Confes- 
sion and Catechisms of the national Assembly of Westminster. 

2. What are their legitimate uses? 



114 CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. 

They have been found in all ages of the church useful for 
the following purposes. (1.) To mark, preserve, and dissemi- 
nate the attainments made in the knowledge of Christian truth 
by any branch of the church in any grand crisis of its devel- 
opment. (2.) To discriminate the truth from the glosses of 
false teachers, and accurately to define it in its integrity and 
due proportions. (3.) To act as the bond of ecclesiastical fel- 
lowship among those so nearly agreed as to be able to labor 
together in harmony. (4.) To be used as instruments in the 
great work of popular instruction. 

3. What is the ground and extent of their authority, or poiver 
to bind the conscience ? 

The matter of all these Creeds and Confessions binds the 
consciences of men only so far as it is purely scriptural, and 
because it is so. The form in which that matter is stated, on 
the other hand, binds only those who have voluntarijy sub- 
scribed the Confession and because of that subscription. 

In all churches a distinction is made between the terms 
upon which private members are admitted to membership, and 
the terms upon which office-bearers are admitted to their sacred 
trusts of teaching and ruling. A church has no right to make 
any thing a condition of membership which Christ has not 
made a condition of salvation. The church is Christ's fold. 
The Sacraments are the seals of his covenant. All have a 
right to claim admittance who make a credible profession of 
the true religion, that is, who are presumptively the people of 
Christ. This credible profession of course involves a compe- 
tent knowledge of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, a 
declaration of personal faith in Christ and of devotion to his 
service, and a temper of mind and a habit of life consistent 
therewith. On the other hand, no man can be inducted into 
any office in any church who does not profess to believe in 
the truth and wisdom of the constitution and laws it will be 
his duty to conserve and administer. Otherwise all harmony 
of sentiment and all efficient co-operation in action would be 
impossible. 

It is a universally admitted principle of morals that the 
animus imponentis, the sense in which the persons who impose 
an oath, or promise, or engagement, understand it, binds the 
conscience of the persons who bind themselves by oath or 
promise. All candidates for office in the Presbyterian Church, 
therefore, do either personally believe the "system of doctrine" 
taught in our Standards, in the sense in which it has been 
historically understood to be God's truth, or solemnly lie to 
God and man. 



THE ANCIENT CREEDS. 115 

4. What ivere the Creeds of the ancient Church, which remain 
the common inheritance of all branches of the modern Church ? 

I. The Apostle's Creed, so called. This Creed gradually 
grew out of the comparison and assimilation of the Baptismal 
Creeds of the principal Churches in the West or Latin half of 
the ancient Church. The most complete and popular forms of 
these baptismal creeds were those of Rome, Aquileja, Milan, 
Ravenna, Carthage, and Hippo, "of which the Roman form, 
enriching itself by additions from others, gradually gained the 
more general acceptance. While the several articles considered 
separately are all of Nicene or Anti-nicene origin, the creed as 
a whole in its present form, can not be traced beyond the sixth 
century." — Schaff 's " Creeds of Christendom," vol. 1. p. 20. 

It was subjoined by the Westminster divines to their Cate- 
chism, together with the Lord's Prayer and Ten Command- 
ments. " Not as though it was composed by the apostles, or 
ought to be esteemed canonical Scripture, but because it is a 
brief sum of Christian faith, agreeable to the word of God, and 
anciently received in the Churches of Christ." It was retained 
by the framers of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church 
in the United States as part of our Catechism. It is a part of 
the Catechism of the Methodist Episcopal Church also. "It is 
used in the baptismal Confession of the Roman, English, Re- 
formed, Lutheran, Methodist Episcopal, and Protestant Epis- 
copal Churches." 

It is as follows: 

"I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth; 
and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord ; who was conceived by the 
Holy Ghost; born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate ; 
was crucified, dead and buried ; he descended into hell (Hades) ; the third 
day he rose again from the dead, he ascended into heaven, and sitteth 
on the right hand of God the Father almighty; from thence he shall come 
to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy 
catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the 
resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen." 

II. The Nicene Creed, in which the true Trinitarian faith 
of the church is accurately denned in opposition to Arian and 
Semiarian errors. It exists in three forms, and evidently was 
moulded upon pre-existing forms similar to those from which 
the Apostles' Creed grew. 

1st. The original form in which it was composed and en- 
acted by the CEcumenical Council of Nice, a. d. 325. 

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things 
visible and invisible. 

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the 



116 CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. 

Father, the only begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of 
God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being 
of one substance (6/xoovdiov) with the Father; by whom all things were 
made, both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salva- 
tion, came down and was incarnate, and was made man; he suffered, and 
the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall 
come to judge the quick and the dead. 

' ' And in the Holy Ghost. 

"But those who say: ' There was a time when he was not; ' and, ' He 
was not before he was made ; ' and, ' He was made out of nothing, ' or, 
'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or, 'The Son of God is 
created' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable' — they are condemned by the 
holy catholic and apostolic Church." 

2d. The Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed. This consists of 
the Nicene Creed, above given, slightly changed in the first 
article, and with the clauses defining the Person and work of 
the Holy Ghost added, and the Anathema omittted. This new 
form of the Creed has been generally attributed to the Council 
of Constantinople, convened by the Emperor Theodosius, a. d. 
381, to condemn the doctrine of the Macedonians, who denied 
the divinity of the Holy Ghost. These changes in the Nicene 
Creed were unquestionably made about that date, and the 
several " clauses " added existed previously in formularies pro- 
posed by individual theologians. But there is no evidence 
that the changes were made by the Council of Constanti- 
nople. They were, however, recognized by the Council of 
Chalcedon, a. d. 451. 

It is in this latter form that the Creed of Nice is now used 
in the Greek Church. 

3d. The third or Latin form of this creed, in which it is 
used in the Koman, Episcopal, and Lutheran Churches, differs 
from the second form above mentioned only in (a.) restoring the 
clause ("Deus de Deo") "God of God," to the first clause; it 
belonged to the original Creed of Nice, but had been dropped 
out of the Greek Nicseno-Constantinopolitan form, (b.) The 
famous " Filioque" term was added to the clause affirming the 
procession of the Spirit from the Father. This was added by 
the provincial Council of Toledo, Spain, a. d. 589, and gradually 
accepted by the whole Western Church, and thence by all 
Protestants, without any oecumenical ratification. That phrase 
is rejected by the Greek Church. The text of this Creed as 
received with reverence by all Catholics and Protestants is as 
follows (Schaff's "Creeds of Christendom," pp. 25-29): 

' ' I believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, 
and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the 
only begotten son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds; God 
of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being 
of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; Who 



THE ANCIENT CREEDS. 117 

for us men and for our salvation came clown from heaven, and was incar- 
nate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; He w~as 
crucified, also for us, under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried; 
and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended 
into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall 
come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose king- 
dom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and 
Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son (this phrase 
"filioque" was added to the creed of Constantinople by the council of 
the western church held at Toledo, a. d. 589), who, with the Father 
and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the 
prophets. And I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church, I acknowl- 
edge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection 
of the dead, and the life of the world to come." 

III. The Athanasian Creed, so called, also styled, from its 
opening words, the symbol Quicunque vult, is vulgarly ascribed 
to the great Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, from about 
a. d. 328 to a. d. 373, and the leader of the orthodox party 
in the church in opposition to the arch heretic, Arius. But 
modern scholars unanimously assign to it a later origin, and 
trace it to Northern Africa and the school of Augustine. Big- 
ham refers it to Virgilius Tapsensis at the end of the fifth cen- 
tury. Schaff says its complete form does not appear before the 
end of the eighth century. 

This Creed is received in the Greek, Roman, and English 
Churches, but it has been left out of the Prayer Book of the 
Episcopal Church of America. It presents a most admirably 
stated exposition of the faith of all Christians, and it is objected 
to only because of the " damnatoiy clauses," which ought never 
to be attached to any human composition, especially one mak- 
ing such nice distinctions upon so profound a subject. 

It is as follows: 

"1. Whosoever wishes to be saved, it is above all necessary for him 
to hold the Catholic faith. 2. Which, unless each one shall preserve 
perfect and inviolate, he shall certainly perish for ever. 3. But the 
Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in 
unity. 4. Neither coufounding the persons, nor separating the sub- 
stance. 5. For the person of the Father is one, of the Son another, 
and of the Holy Ghost another. 6. But of the Father, of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost there is one divinity, equal glory and co-eterual 
majesty. 7. What the Father is, the same is the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost. 8. The Father is uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Holy Ghost 
uncreated. 9. The Father is immense, the Son immense, the Holy 
Ghost immense. 10. The Father is eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy 
Ghost eternal. 11. And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. 
12. So there are not three (beings) uncreated, nor three immense, but 
one uncreated, and one immense. 13. In like manner the Father is 
omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Ghost is omnipotent. 

14. And yet there are not three omnipotents, but one omnipotent. 

15. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God. 



118 CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. 

16. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God. 17. Thus the 
Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord. 18. And 
yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord. 19. Because as we are 
thus compelled by Christian verity to confess each person severally to 
be God and Lord; so we are prohibited by the Catholic religion from 
saying that there are three Gods or Lords. 20. The Father was made 
from none, nor created, nor begotten. 21. The Son is from the Father 
alone, neither made, nor created, but begotten. 22. The Holy Ghost is 
from the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, 
but proceeding. 23. Therefore there is one Father, not three fathers, 
one Son, not three sons, one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. 24. And 
in this trinity no one is first or last, no one is greater or less. 25. But 
all the three co-eternal persons are co-equal among themselves; so that 
through all, as is above said, both unity in trinity, and trinity in unity 
is to be worshipped. 26. Therefore, he who wishes to be saved must 
think thus concerning the trinity. 27. But it is necessary to eternal 
salvation that he should also faithfully believe the incarnation of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. 28. It is, therefore, true faith that we believe and 
confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is both God and man. 29. He is 
God, generated from eternity from the substance of the Father; man, 
born in time from the substance of his mother. 30. Perfect God, per- 
fect man, subsisting of a rational soul and human flesh. 31. Equal to 
the Father in respect to his divinity, less than the Father in respect to 
his humanity. 32. Who, although he is God and man, is not two but 
one Christ. 33. But one, not from the conversion of his divinity into 
flesh, but from the assumption of his humanity into God. 34. One not 
at all from confusion of substance, but from unity of person. 35. For 
as a rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. 
36. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, the third day 
rose from the dead. 37. Ascended to heaven, sitteth at the right hand 
of God the Father omnipotent, whence he shall come to judge the living 
and the dead. 38. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their 
bodies, and shall render an account for their own works. 39. And they 
who have done well shall go into life eternal; they who have done evil 
into eternal fire. 40. This is the Catholic faith, which, unless a man 
shall faithfully and firmly believe, he can not be saved." 

IV. The Creed of Chalcedon. The Emperor Marcianus 
called the fourth oecumenical council to meet at Chalcedon 
in Bithynia, on the Bosphorus, opposite Constantinople, to put 
down the Eutychian and Nestorian heresies. The Council con- 
sisted of 630 bishops and sat from Oct. 8 to Oct. 31, a. d. 451. 

The principal part of the "Definition of Faith" agreed upon 
by this Council is as follows : 

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach 
men to confess, one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; the same 
perfect in Godhead and also perfect in Manhood; truly God, and truly 
Man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father ac- 
cording to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the 
Manhood ; in all things like unto us without sin ; begotten before all 
ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, 
for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin Mother of God 
according to the Manhood. He is one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, 






CONFESSIONS OF ROMAN CHURCH. 119 

Only-begotten, existing in two natures without mixture {a6vyxvt -gos), 
without change (a'rp^rcos), without division (adiaiperGos), without 
separation (dx<*>pi6rGos); the diversity of the two natures not being at 
all destroyed by their union, but the peculiar properties of each nature 
being preserved, and concurring to one person and one subsistence, not 
parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and Only- 
begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from 
the beginning have declared concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus 
Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Creed of the holy fathers has 
delivered to us." 

This completed the development of the orthodox Church 
doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in the one God, and of the 
duality of natures in the one Christ. It remains a universally 
respected statement of the common faith of the Church. 

5. What are tlie doctrinal Standards of the Church of Rome ? 

Besides the above mentioned Creeds, all of which are of 
recognized authority in the Romish Church, their great Stand- 
ards of Faith are — 1st. The " Canons and Decrees of the Council of 
Trent" which they regard as the twentieth oecumenical council, 
and was called by Pope Pius IV. to oppose the progress of the 
Reformation (a. d. 1545-1563). The decrees contain the pos- 
itive statements of Papal doctrine. The canons explain the 
decrees, distribute the matter under brief heads, and condemn 
the opposing doctrine on each point. Although studiously am- 
biguous, the system of doctrine taught is evidently though not 
consistently Semipelagian. 

2d. The " Roman Catechism" which explains and enforces 
the canons of the Council of Trent, was prepared by order of 
Pius IV. and promulgated by the authority of Pope Pius V., 
a. d. 1566. 

3d. The "Creed of Pope Pius IV." also called "Prqfessio 
Fidei Tridentince" or " Forma Professionis Fidei Catholicce" con- 
tains a summary of the doctrines taught in the Canons and 
Decrees of the Council of Trent, and was promulgated in a 
bull by Pope Pius IV., a. d. 1564. It is subscribed to by all 
grades of Papal teachers and ecclesiastics, and by all converts 
from Protestantism. 

It is as follows: 

"I, A. B., believe and profess with a firm faith all and every one 
of the things which are contained in the symbol of faith which is used 
in the holy Roman Church; namely, I believe in one God the Father 
Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invis- 
ible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only -begotten Son of God, be- 
gotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very 
God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, 
by whom all things were made ; who for us men and for our salvation 



120 CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. 

came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the 
Virgin Mary, and was made man; was crucified for us under Pontius 
Pilate, suffered and was buried, and rose again the third day according 
to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of 
the Father, and will come again with glory to judge the living and the 
dead, of whose kingdom there will be no end; and in the Holy Ghost, 
the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, 
who, together with the Father and the Son, is adored and glorified, who 
spake by the holy prophets; and one holy catholic and apostolic Church. 
I confess one baptism for the remission of sins, and I expect the resur- 
rection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. 

"I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical 
traditions, and all other constitutions and observances of the same Church. 
I also admit the sacred Scriptures according to the sense which the holy 
mother Church has held and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge 
of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; nor will I ever 
take or interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous 
consent of the fathers. I profess, also, that there are truly and properly 
seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, 
and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though all are not neces- 
sary for every one — namely baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, 
extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, and that they confer grace; 
and of these, baptism, confirmation, and order can not be reiterated 
without sacrilege., I do also receive and admit the ceremonies of the 
Catholic Church, received and approved in the solemn administration 
of all the above-said sacraments. I receive and embrace all and every 
one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy 
Council of Trent concerning sin and justification. I profess likewise 
that in the mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacri- 
fice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of 
the eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, 
together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that 
there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the 
body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which 
conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I confess, also, 
that under either kind alone, Christ whole and entire, and a true sacra- 
ment is received. I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that 
the souls detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. 
Likewise that the saints reigning together with Christ are to be honored 
and invoked, that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics 
are to be venerated. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, and 
of the mother of God ever Virgin, and also of the other saints, are to be 
had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be given to 
them. I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in 
the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian 
people. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the 
mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise and swear true obe- 
dience to the Roman bishop, the successor of St. Peter, prince of the 
apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ. I also profess, and undoubtedly 
receive all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred 
canons and general councils, and particularly by the holy Council of 
Trent [and by the (Ecumenical Vatican Council delivered, defined, and 
declared, particularly concerning the primacy and infallible rule of the 
Roman Pontiff*] 

*Added by Decree of the "Sacred Congregation of the Council," Jan. 2, 1877. 



CONFESSIONS OF ROMAN AND GREEK CHURCHES. 121 

"And likewise I also condemn, reject, and anathematize all things 
contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever condemned, rejected and 
anathematized by the Church. This true Catholic faith, out of which 
none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, I., A. B., 
promise, vow and swear most constantly to hold, and profess the same 
whole and entire, with God's assistance, to the end of my life; and to 
procure as far as lies in my power, that the same shall be held, taught 
and preached by all who are under me, or who are intrusted to my care, 
in virtue of my office, so help me God, and these holy gospels of God 
— Amen." 

4th. The Holy (Ecumenical Vatican Council assembled at 
the call of Pius IX. in the Basilica of the Vatican, Dec. 8, 1869, 
and continued its sessions until October 20, 1870, after which 
it was indefinitely postponed. 

The Decrees of this Council embrace two sections. 

I. " The Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith." 
This embraces four chapters. Chap. 1 treats of God as Cre- 
ator; chap. 2, of revelation; chap. 3, of faith; chap. 4, of faith 
and reason. These are followed by eighteen canons, in which 
the errors of modern rationalism and infidelity are condemned. 

II. "First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ." 
This also embraces four chapters. Chap. 1 is entitled " Of the 
Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in Blessed Peter;" chap. 2, 
" Of the Perpetuity of the Primacy of Blessed Peter in the Ro- 
man Pontiffs;" chap. 3, "On the Power and Nature of the 
Primacy of the Soman Pontiff; " chap. 4, " Concerning the In- 
fallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff." "The new features 
are contained in the last two chapters, which teach Papal Abso- 
lutism, and Papal Infallibility." These definitions are presented 
to a sufficient extent under Chapter V. of these "Outlines." 

In consequence of this principle of Papal Infallibility it nec- 
essarily follows, that the whole succession of Papal Bulls, and 
especially those directed against the Jansenists and the Decree 
of Pius IX. "On the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed 
Virgin Mary," Dec. 8, 1854; and his Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 
8, 1864, are all infallible and irreformable and parts of the 
amazing Standards of Faith professed by the Roman Church. 

6. What are the Doctrinal Standards of the Greek Church ? 

The ancient church divided, from causes primarily political 
and ecclesiastical, secondarily doctrinal and ritual, into two 
great sections — the Eastern or Greek Church, and the West- 
ern or Latin Church. This division began to culminate in the 
seventh, and was consummated in the eleventh century. The 
Greek Church embraces about eighty millions of people, the 
majority of the Christians inhabitants of the Turkish Empire, 
and the national churches of Greece and Russia. All the Prot- 



122 CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. 

estant Churches have originated from the Western or Latin 
division of the church. 

She arrogates to herself, pre-eminently, the title of "Ortho- 
dox," because the original oecumenical Creeds defining the 
doctrines of the Trinity and the Person of Christ were pro- 
duced in the Eastern division of the ancient church and in the 
Greek language, and hence are in a special sense her inheri- 
tance, and because from the fact that her theology is absolutely 
unprogressive, she contents herself with the literal repetition of 
the old formulas. 

She adheres to the ancient Creeds and doctrinal decisions 
of the first seven oecumenical councils, and possesses a few 
modern Confessions and Catechisms. The most important of 
these are — 

1st. The "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic 
Greek Church," composed by Peter Mogilas, Metropolitan of 
Kieff in Eussia, a. d. 1643, and approved by all the Eastern 
Patriarchs. 

2d. The "Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem," or the Con- 
fession of Dgsitheus, 1672. 

3d. The Eussian Catechisms which have the sanction of the 
Holy Synod, especially the Longer Catechism of Philaret, Met- 
ropolitan of Moscow, 1820-1867, unanimously approved by all 
the Eastern Patriarchs, and since 1839 generally used in the 
schools and churches of Eussia. 

The Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem teach substantially 
though less definitely the same doctrine as those of the Council 
of Trent as to the Scriptures and Tradition, good works and 
faith, justification, the sacraments, the sacrifice of the mass, 
the worship of saints, and purgatory. 

The Catechism of Philaret "approaches more nearly to the 
evangelical principle of the supremacy of the Bible in matters 
of Christian faith and life than any other deliverance of the 
Eastern Church." — SchafFs "Creeds of Christendom," Vol. I., 
pp. 45 and 71. 

7. What are the Doctrinal Standards of the Lutheran Church ? 

Besides the great General Creeds which they receive in 
common with all Christians their Symbolical Books are — 

1st. The Augsburg Confession, the joint authors of which 
were Luther and Melanchthon. Having been signed by the 
Protestant princes and leaders, it was presented to the em- 
peror and imperial diet in Augsburg, a. d. 1530. It is the 
oldest Protestant Confession, the ultimate basis of Lutheran 
theology, and the only universally accepted standard of the 
Lutheran Churches. It consists of two grand divisions. The 



LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS. 123 

first embracing twenty-one articles, presents a positive state- 
ment of Christian doctrines as the Lutherans understand them ; 
and the second, embracing seven articles, condemns the prin- 
cipal characteristic errors of the Papacy. It is evangelical in 
the Augustinian sense, although not as precise in statement as 
the more perfect Calvinistic Confessions, and it, of course, con- 
tains the germs of the peculiar Lutheran views as to the neces- 
sity of the Sacraments, and the relation of the sacramental 
signs to the grace they signify. Yet these peculiarities are so 
far from being explicitly stated, that Calvin found it consistent 
with his views of divine truth to subscribe this great Confes- 
sion during his residence in Strasburg. 

In 1540, ten years after it had been adopted as the public 
symbol of Protestant Germany, Melanchthon produced an edi- 
tion in Latin which he altered in several particulars, and which 
was hence distinguished as the Variata, the original and only 
authentic form of the Confession being distinguished as the 
Invariata. The principal changes introduced in this edition 
incline towards Synergistic or Arminian views of divine grace 
on the one hand, and on the other to simple views as to the 
sacraments more nearly corresponding with those prevailing 
among the Reformed Churches. — See Shedd's " Hist, of Christ. 
Doctrine," Book vii., 'chap. 2. See also the accurate and learn- 
edly illustrated edition of the Augsburg Confession by Rev. 
Charles Krauth, D.D. 

2d. The Apology (Defence) of the Augsburg Confession, pre- 
pared by Melanchthon, a. d. 1530, and subscribed by the Pro- 
testant theologians, a. d. 1537, at Smalcald. 

3d. The Larger and Smaller Catechisms prepared by Luther, 
a. d. 1529, " the first for the use of preachers and teachers, the 
last as a guide for youth." 

4th. The Articles of Smalcald, drawn up by Luther, a. d. 
1536, and inscribed by the evangelical theologians in February, 
a. d. 1537, at the place whose name they bear. 

5th. The Formula Concordia^ (Form of Concord), prepared 
in a. d. 1577 by Jacob Andrese and Martin Chemnitz and 
others for the purpose of settling certain controversies which 
had sprung up in the Lutheran Church, especially (a) concern- 
ing the relative action of divine grace and the human will in 
regeneration, (b) concerning the nature of the Lord's presence 
in the Eucharist. This Confession contains a more scientific 
and thoroughly developed statement of the Lutheran doctrine 
than can be found in any other of their public symbols. Its 
authority is, however, acknowledged only by the high Lu- 
theran party, that is, by that party in the church which con- 
sistently carries the peculiarities of Lutheran theology out to 



124 CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. 

the most complete logical development. All these Lutheran 
Symbols may be found in Latin accurately edited in " Libri 
Symbolic!," by Dr. C. A. Hase, Leipsic, 1836, and in Schaff's 
"Creeds of Christendom." 

8. What are the principal Confessions of the Reformed or Calr 
vinistic Churches ? 

The Confessions of the Keformed Churches are very consid- 
erable in number, and vary somewhat in character, although 
they substantially agree in the system of doctrines they teach. 

1st, "The oldest Confession of that branch of Protestantism 
which was not satisfied with the Lutheran tendency and sym- 
bol is the Confessio Tetrapolitana, — so-called, because the theo- 
logians of four cities of upper Germany, Strasburg, Constance, 
Memmingen, and Lindau, drew it up, and presented it to the 
emperor at the same diet of Augsburg, in 1530, at which the 
first Lutheran symbol was presented. The principal theolo- 
gian concerned in its construction was Martin Bucer, of Stras- 
burg. It consists of twenty-two articles, and agrees generally 
with the Augsburg Confession. The points of difference per- 
tain to the doctrine of the sacraments. Upon this subject 
it is Zwinglian. These four cities, however, in 1532 adopted 
the Augsburg Confession, so that the Confessio Tetrapolitana 
ceased to be the formally adopted symbol of any branch of the 
church." — Shedd's "Hist, of Christ. Doctrine," Book vii., chap. 2. 

2d. The Reformed Confessions of the highest authority 
among the churches are the following: 

(1.) The Second Helvetic Confession, prepared by Bullinger, 
a. d. 1561, and published 1566, superseded the First Helvetic 
Confession of a. d. 1536. It was adopted by all the Reformed 
Churches in Switzerland with the exception of Basle (which 
was content with the old Confession) and by the Reformed 
Churches in Poland, Hungary, Scotland and France, and it has 
always been esteemed as of the highest authority by all the 
Reformed Churches. 

(2.) The Heidelberg Catechism, prepared by Ursinus and Ole- 
vianus a. d. 1562. It was established by civil authority as the 
doctrinal standard as well as the instrument of religious in- 
struction for the churches of the Palatinate, a German state at 
that time including both banks of the Rhine. It was indorsed 
by the Synod of Dort, and is a doctrinal standard of the Re- 
formed Churches of Germany and Holland, and of the [German 
and Dutch] Reformed Churches in America. It was used for 
the instruction of children in Scotland, before the adoption of 
the Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, and its use was 
sanctioned by an unanimous vote of the first General Assembly 



REFORMED CONFESSIONS. 125 

of the reunited Presbyterian Church in the United States a. d. 
1870.— See Minutes. 

(3.) The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. In 
1552, Cranmer, with the advice of other bishops, drew up the 
Forty-tiuo Articles of Religion, and which were published by 
royal authority in 1553. These were revised and reduced to 
the number of thirty-nine by Archbishop Parker and other 
bishops, and ratified by both houses of Convocation, and pub- 
lished by royal authority in 1563. They constitute the doc- 
trinal standard of the Protestant Episcopal Churches of Eng- 
land, Ireland, Scotland, the Colonies, and the United States of 
America. The question whether these Articles are Calvinistie 
or not has been very unwarrantably made a matter of debate. 
See Lawrence's " Bampton Lecture " for 1804 on the Arminian 
side, and Toplady's " Doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of 
England," Dr. Goode's " Doctrine of Church of England as to 
Effects of Infant Baptism," and Dr. William Cunningham's 
" Reformers and their Theology," on the Calvinistie side. The 
seventeenth Article on Predestination is perfectly decisive of 
the question, and is as follows : 

"Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby 
(before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed 
by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those 
whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by 
Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honor. Wherefore 
they which he endued with so excellent a benefit of God, he called 
according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season : they, 
through grace, obey the calling; they he justified freely; they he made 
sons of God by adoption; they he made like the image of his only be- 
gotten Son, Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works, and at 
length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. 

"As the godly consideration of predestination and our election in 
Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly per- 
sons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, 
mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members, and draw- 
ing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth 
greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed 
through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love toward God. 
So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have 
continually before their eyes the sentence of God's predestination, is a 
most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into 
desperation, or into wretchedness of most unclean living, no less perilous 
than desperation. 

"Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise as they 
be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture; and, in our doings, that 
will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us 
in the word of God. " 

These Articles purged of their Calvinism and reduced in 
number to twenty-five, including a new political Article (the 



126 CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. 

twenty-third) adopting as an article of faith the political system 
of the United States Government, constitute the doctrinal Stand- 
ard of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. 

(4.) The Canons of the Synod of Dort. This famous Synod 
was convened in Dort, Holland, by the authority of the States 
General, for the purpose of settling the questions brought into 
controversy by the disciples of Arminius. Its sessions contin- 
ued from Nov. 13, a. d. 1618, to May 9, a. d. 1619. It consisted 
of pastors, elders, and theological professors from the churches 
of Holland, and deputies from the churches of England, Scot- 
land, Hesse, Bremen, the Palatinate, and Switzerland. The 
Canons of this Synod were received by all the Reformed 
Churches as a true, accurate, and eminently authoritative ex- 
hibition of the Calvinistic system of theology. They consti- 
tute in connection with the Heidelberg Catechism the doc- 
trinal Confession of the Reformed Church of Holland and of 
its daughter the [Dutch] Reformed Church in America. 

(5.) The Confession and Catechisms of the Westminster Assem- 
bly. This Assembly of Divines was convened by an act of the 
Long Parliament passed June 12, 1643. The original call em- 
braced ten lords and twenty commoners as lay members, and 
one hundred and twenty-one divines — twenty ministers being 
afterward added — all shades of opinion as to Church Govern- 
ment being represented. The body continued its sessions from 
1st of July, 1643, to 22d of February, 1649. The Confession 
and Catechisms they produced were immediately adopted by 
the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Con- 
gregational Convention, also, called by Cromwell to meet at 
Savoy, in London, a. d. 1658, declared their approval of the 
doctrinal part of the Confession and Catechisms of the West- 
minster Assembly, and conformed their own deliverance, the 
Savoy Declaration, very nearly to it. Indeed " the difference 
between these two Confessions is so very small, that the mod- 
ern Independents have in a manner laid aside the use of it 
(Savoy Declaration) in their families, and agreed with the 
Presbyterians in the use of the Assembly's Catechisms." — Neal, 
"Puritans," II., 178. This Confession together with the Larger 
and Smaller Catechisms is the doctrinal standard of all the 
Presbyterian bodies in the world of English and Scotch deri- 
vation. It is also of all Creeds the one most highly approved 
by all bodies of Congregationalists in England and America. 

All of the Assemblies convened in New England for the 
purpose of settling the doctrinal basis of their churches have 
either indorsed or explicitly adopted this Confession and these 
Catechisms as accurate expositions of their own faith. This 
was done by the Synod which met at Cambridge, Massachu- 



REFORMED CONFESSIONS. 127 

setts, June, 1647, and again August, 1648, and prepared the 
Cambridge Platform. And it was done again by the Synod 
which sat in Boston, September, 1679, and May, 1680, and pro- 
duced the Boston Confession. And again by the Synod which 
met at Say brook, Connecticut, 1708, and produced the Say- 
brook Platform. 

3d. There remain several other Reformed Confessions, which, 
although they are not the doctrinal standards of large denomi- 
nations of Christians, are nevertheless of high classical interest 
and authority because of their authors, and the circumstances 
under which they originated. 

(1.) The "Consensus Tigurinus" or the " Consensus of Zurich" 
or "The mutual consent with respect to the doctrine of the 
sacrament of the ministers of the Church of Zurich and John 
Calvin, minister of the Church of Geneva." It consisted of 
twenty-six Articles, and deals exclusively with the questions 
relating to the Lord's Supper, and it was drawn by Calvin, 
a. d. 1549, for the purpose of bringing about a mutual consent 
among all parties in the Reformed Church on the subject of 
which it treats. It was subscribed by the Churches of Zurich, 
Geneva, St. Gall, Schaffhausen, the Grisons, Neuchatel, and 
Basle, and was received with favor by all parts of the Re- 
formed Church, and remains an eminent monument of the 
true mind of the Reformed Church upon this so much debated 
question; and especially it is of value as setting forth with 
eminent clearness and unquestionable authority the real opin- 
ions of Calvin on the subject, deliberately stated after he had 
ceased from the vain attempt to secure the unity of Protestant- 
ism by a compromise with the Lutheran views as to the Lord's 
presence in the Eucharist. An accurate translation of this im- 
portant document will be found in the Appendix. 

(2.) The "Consensus Genevensis" was drawn up by Calvin, 
a. d. 1552, in the name of the Pastors of Geneva, and is a com- 
plete statement of Calvin's views on the subject of Predestina- 
tion. It was designed to unite all the Swiss Churches in their 
views of this great doctrine. It remains a pre-eminent monu- 
ment of the fundamental principles of true Calvinism. 

(3.) The "Formula Consensus Helvetica" composed at Zurich, 
a. d. 1675, by John Henry Heidegger of Zurich, assisted by 
Francis Turretin of Geneva and Luke Gernler of Basle. Its 
title is "Form of agreement of the Helvetic Reformed Churches 
respecting the doctrine of universal grace, the doctrines con- 
nected therewith, and some other points." It was designed to 
unite the Swiss Churches in condemning and excluding that 
modified form of Calvinism, which in that century emanated 
from the Theological School of Saumur, represented by Amyral- 



128 CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. 

dus, Placeeus, etc. This is the most scientific and thorough of 
all the Reformed Confessions. Its eminent authorship* and the 
fact that it distinctively represents the most thoroughly con- 
sistent school of old Calvinists gives it high classical interest. 
It was subscribed by nearly all the Swiss Churches, but ceased 
to have public authority as a Confession since a. d. 1722. | All 
the Confessions of the Keformed Churches may be found col- 
lected in one convenient volume in the "Collectio Confessionum 
in Ecclesiis Reformatis publicatarum," by Dr. H. A. Niemeyer, 
Leipsic, 1840, and in Dr. SchafT's " Creeds of Christendom." 

* See Herzog's Eeal- Encyclopedia. Bomberger's translation. Article, 
"Helvetic Confessions." 

f An accurate translation will be found in the Appendix. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

1. What are the three methods of determining ivhat attributes 
belong to the divine Being ? 

1st. The method of analyzing the idea of infinite and abso- 
lute perfection. This method proceeds upon the assumption 
that we are, as intelligent and moral agents, created in the 
image of God. In this process we attribute to him every ex- 
cellence that we have any experience or conception of, in an 
infinite degree, and in absolute perfection, and we deny of 
him every form of imperfection or limitation. 

2d. The method of inferring his characteristics from our 
observation of his works around us and our experience of his 
dealings with ourselves. 

3d. The didactic statements of Scripture, the illustration of 
his character therein given in his supernatural revelation and 
gracious dispensations, and above all in the personal revelation 
of God in his Son Jesus Christ. 

All these methods agree and mutually supplement and limit 
each other. The idea of absolute and infinite perfection, which 
in some sense is native to us, aids us in interpreting Scripture 
— and the Scriptures correct the inferences of the natural rea- 
son, and set the seal of divine authority upon our opinions 
about the divine nature. 

2. Hoivfar can ive have assurance that the objective reality cor- 
responds with our subjective conceptions of the divine nature ? 

There are upon this subject two opposite extreme positions 
which it is necessary to avoid. 1st. The extreme of supposing 
that our conceptions of God either in kind or degree are ade- 
quate to represent the objective reality of his perfections. God 
is incomprehensible to us in the sense (a) that there remains 
an immeasurably greater part of his being and excellence of 
which we have and can have no knowledge, and (b) in the 
sense that even what we know of him we know imperfectly, 
9 



130 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

and at best conceive of very inadequately. In this respect the 
imperfection of the knowledge which men have of God is anal- 
ogous in kind, though indefinitely greater in degree to the im- 
perfection of the knowledge which a child may have of the life 
of a great philosopher or statesman dwelling in the same city. 
The child not only knows that the philosopher or statesman in 
question lives — but he knows also in some real degree ivhat 
that life is — yet that knowledge is imperfect both in respect to 
the fact that it apprehends a very small proportion of that life, 
and that it very imperfectly comprehends even that small pro- 
portion. 2d. The second extreme to be avoided is that of sup- 
posing that our knowledge of God is purely illusory, that our 
conceptions of the divine perfections can not correspond in any 
degree to the objective reality. Sir Wm. Hamilton, Mr. Man- 
sel, and others, having proved that we are forced to think of 
God as "first cause," as "infinite," and as "absolute," proceed 
to give definitions of these abstract terms, which they then 
show necessarily involve mutual contradictions, of which the 
huinan reason is intolerant. They then conclude that our con- 
ceptions of God can not correspond to the real objective exist- 
ence of the divine being. "To think that God is as we can 
think him to be is blasphemy." The last and highest conse- 
cration of all true religion, must be an altar — "Ayv^rop Becq — 
"To the unknown and unknowable God" (Sir William Ham- 
ilton's " Discussions," p. 22). They hold that all the represen- 
tations of God conveyed in the Scriptures, and the best con- 
ceptions we are with the aid of Scripture able to form in our 
minds, do not at all correspond to the outward reality, but are 
designed simply to be accepted not as actual scientific knowl- 
edge, but as regulative assumptions " abundantly instructive 
in point of sentiment and action" and practically sufficient for 
our present needs; " sufficient to guide our practice, but not to 
satisfy our intellect — which tell not what God is in himself, but 
how he ivills that ice should think of him." — Mansel's " Limits of 
Religious Thought," p. 132. 

This view, although not so intended, really leads to skep- 
tical if not to dogmatic atheism. (1.) It is founded upon an 
artificial and inapplicable definition of certain abstract notions 
entertained by philosophers concerning the "absolute" and the 
"infinite." As shown below, Question 6, a true definition of 
the absolute and infinite, in the sense in which the Scriptures 
and the unsophisticated minds of men hold God to be absolute 
and infinite, involves no contradictions or absurdities whatso- 
ever. (2.) It will be shown below, Questions 3 and 5, that there 
is adequate ground for the assumption that as intellectual And 
moral beings we are really and truly created in the image of 



WHAT IS ANTHROPOMORPHISM? 131 

God, and therefore capable of knowing him as he really exists. 
(3.) If our consciousness and the Sacred Scriptures present us 
illusory conceptions as to ivhat God is, we have no reason to 
trust to their assurance that God is. (4.) This principle leads 
to absolute skepticism. If our Creator wills that we should 
think of him as he does not really exist, Ave have no reason 
to trust our constitutional instincts or faculties in any depart- 
ment. (5.) This principle is immoral since it makes a false 
representation of the divine attributes the regulative principle 
of man's moral and religious life. (6.) The highest and most 
certain dictates of human reason necessitates the conviction 
that moral principles, and the essential nature of moral attri- 
butes, must be identically the same in all worlds and in all 
beings possessed of a moral character in any sense. Truth 
and justice and loving-kindness must be always and only the 
same in Creator and creature, in God and man. 

3. What is anthropomorphism, and in what different senses is 
the word used? 

Anthropomorphism (^ayBpoo-rco^y man; juopcptf, form) is a phrase 
employed to designate any view of God's nature which con- 
ceives of him as possessing or exercising any attributes com- 
mon to him with mankind. 

The Anthropomorphites in ancient times held that God pos- 
sessed bodily parts and organs like ours, and hence that all 
those passages of Scripture which speak of his eyes, hands, 
etc., are to be interpreted literally. 

The Pantheists, Sir William Hamilton, and other philoso- 
phers designate all our conceptions of God as a personal Spirit, 
etc., as anthropomorphic — that is, as modes of conception not? 
conformed to objective fact, but determined necessarily by the 
subjective conditions of our own human modes of thought. 

It hence follows that this phrase is to be taken in two 
senses. 

1st. A good sense, in which, since man as a free rational 
spirit was created in the image of God, it is both Scriptural, 
rational, and according to objective fact, for man to conceive 
of God as possessing all the essential attributes which belong 
to our spirits in absolute perfection of kind, and with no limit 
inconsistent with absolute perfection in degree. When we say 
that God knows, and wills, and feels, that he is just, true, and 
merciful, we mean to ascribe to him attributes of the same kind 
as the corresponding ones belonging to men, only in absolute 
perfection, and without limit. 

2d. The word is used in a bad sense when it designates any 
mode of conceiving of God which involves the ascription to him 



132 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

of imperfection or limitation of any kind. Thus to conceive of 
God as possessing hands or feet, or as experiencing the pertur- 
bations of human passion, or the like, is a false and unworthy 
anthropomorphism. 

4. Hoiv are we to understand those passages of Scripture which 
attribute to God bodily parts and the infirmities of human passion ? 

The passages referred to are such as speak of the face of 
God, Ex. xxxiii. 11, 20; his eyes, 2 Chron. xvi. 9; his nostrils, 2 
Sam. xxii. 9, 16; his arms and feet, Isa. lii. 10, and Ps. xviii. 9; 
and such as speak of his repenting and grieving, Gen. vi. 6, 7 ; 
Jer. xv. 6; Ps. xcv. 10; of his being jealous, Deut. xxix. 20, etc. 
These are to be understood only as metaphors. They represent 
the truth with respect to God only analogically, and as seen 
from our point of view. That God can not be material is shown 
below, Question 20. 

When he is said to repent, or to be grieved, or to be jealous, 
it is only meant that he acts towards us as a man would when 
agitated by such passions. These metaphors occur principally 
in the Old Testament, and in highly rhetorical passages of the 
poetical and prophetical books. 

5. State the proof that Anthropomorphic conceptions of God, in 
the good sense of the word, are both necessary and valid. 

The fundamental fact upon which all science, all theology, 
and all religion rests is that God made man a living soul in his 
own image. Otherwise man could have no understanding of 
God's works any more than of his nature, and all relations 
of thought or feeling between them would be impossible. That 
man has the right thus far to conceive of God as the original 
and all perfect fountain of the moral and rational qualities with 
which he is himself endowed is proved — 

1st. It is determined by the necessary laws of our nature, 
(a.) This is a matter of consciousness. If we believe in God at 
all we must conceive of him as a rational and righteous personal 
spirit, (b.) Such a conception of God has universally prevailed 
even amidst the degrading adulterations of heathen mythology. 

2d. We have no other possible mode of knowing God. The 
alternative ever must be the principle for which we contend, or 
absolute atheism. 

3d. The same is determined by the necessities of our moral 
nature. The innate and indestructible moral nature of man 
includes a sense of subjection to a righteous will superior to 
ourselves, and accountability to a moral Governor. This is 
nonsense unless the moral Governor is in our sense of the word 
an intelligent and righteous personal spirit. 



MEANING OF TERMS "INFINITE" AND "ABSOLUTE:' 133 

4th. The most enduring and satisfactory argument for estab- 
lishing the facts of God's existence is the a posteriori argument 
from the evidences of "design" in the works of God. If this 
argument has any force to prove that God is, it has equal force 
to prove that he must possess and exercise intelligence, benev- 
olent intention and choice, i. e., that he must be in our sense of 
the terms an intelligent personal spirit. 

5th. The Scriptures characteristically ascribe the same attri- 
butes to God, and everywhere assume their existence. 

6th. God manifested in the person of Jesus Christ, who is 
the express image of his person, has in all situations exhibited 
these very attributes, yet in such a way as to prove himself to 
be God as truly as he was man. 

6. What is the meaning of the terms "infinite" and "absolute" 
and in what sense are they applied to tlie being of God, and to his 
attributes severally ? 

Hamilton and Mansel define the infinite "that which is free 
from all possible limitation ; that than which a greater is incon- 
ceivable, and which, consequently, can receive no additional 
attributes or mode of existence which it had not from eternity ; " 
and the absolute as "that which exists by itself, having no 
necessary relations to any other being." Hence they argue 
(a) that that which is infinite and absolute must include the 
sum total of all things, evil and good, actual and possible ; for 
if any thing actual or possible is excluded from it, it must be 
finite and relative ; (b) that it can not be an object of knowledge, 
for to know is both to limit — to define — and to bring into rela- 
tion to the one knowing; (c) that it can not be a person, for 
personal consciousness implies limitation and change ; (d) that 
it can not know other things, because to know, implies rela- 
tion as before said. — Hamilton's "Discussions," Art. 1; Mansel's 
"Limits of Religious Thought," Lectures 1, 2, 3. 

All of this logical bewilderment results from these philoso- 
phers starting from the false premise of an abstract, notional 
"infinite" and "absolute," and substituting their definition of 
that in the place of the true infinite and absolute person revealed 
in Scripture and consciousness as the first cause of all things, 
the moral Governor and Redeemer of mankind. 

"Infinite" means that which has no limits. When we say 
God is infinite in his being, or in his knowledge, or in his power, 
we mean that his essence and the active properties thereof, 
have no limitations which involve imperfections of any kind 
whatsoever. He transcends all the limitations of time and space, 
he knows all things in an absolutely perfect manner. He is 
able to effect whatsoever he wills to effect with or without 



134 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

means, and with perfect facility and success. When men say 
that God is infinite in his justice, or his goodness, or his truth, 
they mean that his inexhaustible and unchangeable being pos- 
sesses these properties in absolute perfection. 

" Absolute " when applied to the being of God signifies that 
he is an eternal self-existent person, who existed before all 
other beings, and is the intelligent and voluntary cause of 
whatsoever else has or will exist in the universe, etc., that he 
sustains, consequently, no necessary relation to any thing without 
himself. Whatever exists is conditioned upon God, as the cir- 
cle is conditioned upon its centre, but God himself neither in 
his existence, nor in any of the modes or states of it, is condi- 
tioned upon any of his creatures, nor upon his creation as a 
whole. God is what he is because he is, and he wills whatso- 
ever he does will because " it seemeth good in his sight." All 
other things are what they are because God has Avilled them 
to be as they are. Whatsoever relation he sustains to any 
thing without himself is voluntarily assumed. 

7. In ivhat different ivays do the Scriptures reveal God ? 

They reveal God — 1st. By his names. 2d. By the works 
which they ascribe to him. 3d. By the attributes which they 
predicate of him. 4th. By the worship they direct to be paid 
to him. 5th. By the manifestation of God in Christ. 

8. State the etymology and meaning of the several names ap- 
propriated to God in the Scriptures. 

1st. Jehovah, from the Hebrew verb ^l 7 }' to be. It expresses 
self-existence and unchangeableness; it is the incommunicable 
name of God, which the Jews superstitiously refused to pro- 
nounce, always substituting in their reading the word Adonai, 
Lord. Hence it is represented in our English version by the 
word Lord, printed in capital letters. 

Jah, probably an abbreviation of the name Jehovah, is used 
principally in the Psalms. — Ps. lxviii. 4. It constitutes the 
concluding syllable of hallelujah, praise Jehovah. 

God gave to Moses his peculiar name, "I ai that I am," 
Ex. iii. 14, from the same root, and bearing the same funda- 
mental significance as Jehovah. 

2d. El, might, poiver, translated God, and applied alike to 
the true and to the false gods. — Isa. xliv. 10. 

3d. Elohim and Eloah, the same name in its singular and 
plural form, derived from r6x, to fear, reverence. "In its sin- 
gular form it is used only in the latter books and in poetry." 
in the plural form it is sometimes used with a plural sense for 



THE NAMES OF GOD. 135 

gods, but more commonly as a pluralis excellentice, for God. 
It is applied to false gods, but pre-eminently to Jehovah as the 
great object of adoration. 

4th. Adonai, the Lord, a pluralis excellentice., applied exclu- 
sively to God, expressing possession and sovereign dominion, 
equivalent to uvpios, Lord, so frequently applied to Christ in 
the New Testament. 

5th. Saddai, almighty, a pluralis excellentice. Sometimes it 
stands by itself. — Job v. 17; and sometimes combined with a 
preceding EL — Gen xvii. 1. 

6th. Elyon, Most High, a verbal adjective from rb)l, to go up, 
ascend. — Ps. ix. 3; xxi. 8. 

7th. The term Tzebaoth, of hosts, is frequently used as an 
epithet qualifying one of the above-mentioned names of God. 
Thus, Jehovah of Hosts, God of Hosts, Jehovah, God of Hosts. — 
Amos iv. 13; Ps. xxiv. 10. Some have thought this equivalent 
to God of Battles. The true force of the epithet, however, is 
"sovereign of the stars, material hosts of heaven, and of the 
angels their inhabitants." — Dr. J. A. Alexander, "Com. on Ps. 
xxiv. 10," and Gesenius's " Heb. Lex." 

8th. Many other epithets are applied to God metaphorically, 
to set forth the relation he sustains to us and the offices he ful- 
fills, e. g., King, Lawgiver, Judge. — Isa. xxxiii. 17; Ps. xxiv. 8; 
1. 6. Rock, Fortress, Tower, Deliverer. — 2 Sam. xxii. 2, 3; 
Ps. lxii. 2. Shepherd, Husbandman. — Ps. xxiii. 1; John xv. 1. 
Father. — Matt. vi. 9; John xx. 17, etc. 

9. What are the divine attributes? 

The divine attributes are the perfections which are predi- 
cated of the divine essence in the Scriptures, or visibly exer- 
cised by God in his works of creation and providence and 
redemption. They are not properties or states of the divine 
essence separable in fact or idea from the divine essence, as 
the properties and modes of every created thing are separable 
from the essence of the creature. God's knowledge is his 
essence knowing, and his love is his essence loving, and his 
will is his essence willing, and all these are not latent capa- 
cities of action, nor changing states, but co-existent and eter- 
nally unchangeable states of the divine essence which in state 
and mode as well as in existence is "the same yesterday, to- 
day and forever" and "without variableness or shadow of 
turning." 

Concerning the nature and operations of God, we can know 
only what he has vouchsafed to reveal to us, and with every 
conception, either of his being or his acts, there must always 
attend an element of incomprehensibility, which is inseparable 



136 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

from infinitude. His knowledge and power are as truly beyond 
all understanding as his eternity or immensity. — Job. xi. 7-9; 
xx vi. 14; Ps. cxxxix. 5, 6; Isa. xl. 28. The moral elements of 
his glorious nature are the norm or original type of our moral 
faculties; thus we are made capable of comprehending the ulti- 
mate principles of truth and justice upon which he acts. Truth 
and justice and goodness are of course the same in essence in 
God and in angel and in man. Yet his action upon those prin- 
ciples is often a trial of our faith, and an occasion of our ador- 
ing wonder. — Rom. xi. 33-36 ; Isa. lv. 8, 9. 

10. What do tJieohgians mean by live phrase simplicity, when 
applied to God ? 

The term simplicity is used, first, in opposition to material 
composition, whether mechanical, organic, or chemical ; second, 
in a metaphysical sense in negation of the relation of substance 
and property, essence and mode. In the first sense of the word 
human souls are simple, because they are not composed of ele- 
ments, parts, or organs. In the second sense of the word our 
souls are complex, since there is in them a distinction between 
their essence and their properties, and their successive modes 
or states of existence. As, however. God is infinite, eternal, 
self-existent from eternity, necessarily the same without suc- 
cession, theologians have maintained that in him essence, and 
property, and mode are one. He always is what he is ; and his 
various states of intellection, emotion, and volition are not suc- 
cessive and transient but co-existent and permanent ; and he is 
what he is essentially, and by the same necessity that he exists. 
Whatever is in God, whether thought, emotion, volition, or 
act, is God. 

Some men conceive of God as passing through various tran- 
sient modes and states just as men do, and therefore they sup- 
pose the properties of the divine nature are related to the divine 
essence as the properties of created things are related to the 
essences which are endowed with them. Others press the idea 
of simplicity so far that they deny any distinction in the divine 
attributes in themselves, and suppose that the only difference 
between them is to be found in the mode of external manifest- 
ation, and in the effects produced. They illustrate their idea 
by the various effects produced on different objects by the same 
radiance of the sun. 

In order to avoid both extremes theologians have been ac- 
customed to say that the divine attributes differ from the divine 
essence and from one another, 1st, not realiter or as one thing 
differs from another, or in any such way as to imply composi- 
tion in God. Nor 2d, merely nominaliter, as though there were 



PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION. 137 

nothing in God really corresponding to onr conceptions of his 
perfections. But 3d, they are said to differ virtualiter, so that 
there is in him a foundation or adequate reason for all the rep- 
resentations which are made in Scripture with regard to the 
divine perfections, and for the consequent conceptions which 
we have of them. — Turretin's " Institutio Theologicse," Locus 
iii., Ques. 5 and 7, and Dr. C. Hodge's " Lectures." 

11. State the different principles upon which the classification of 
tlie divine attributes has been attempted. 

From the vastness of the subject and the incommensurate- 
ness of our faculties, it is evident that no classification of the 
divine attributes we can form can be any thing more than ap- 
proximately accurate and complete. The most common class- 
ifications rest upon the following principles : 

1st. They are distinguished as absolute and relative. An ab- 
solute attribute is a property of the divine essence considered 
in itself: e. g., self-existence, immensity, eternity, intelligence. 
A relative attribute is a property of the divine essence con- 
sidered in relation to the creation: e. g., omnipresence, omni- 
science, etc. 

2d. They are also distinguished as affirmative and negative. 
An affirmative attribute is one which expresses some positive 
perfection of the divine essence: e. g., omnipresence, omnipo- 
tence, etc. A negative attribute is one which denies all defect 
or limitation of any kind to God: e. g., immutability, infinitude, 
incomprehensibility, etc. 

3d. The attributes of God, distinguished as communicable 
and incommunicable. The communicable are those to which 
the attributes of the human spirit bear the nearest analogy: e. g., 
his power, knowledge, will, goodness, and righteousness. The 
incommunicable are those to which there is in the creature 
nothing analogous, as eternity, immensity, etc. This distinc- 
tion, however, must not be pressed too far. God is infinite in 
his relation, to space and time ; we are finite in our relation to 
both. But he is no less infinite as to his knowledge, will, good- 
ness, and righteousness in all their modes, and we are finite in 
all these respects. All God's attributes known to us, or con- 
ceivable by us, are communicable, inasmuch as they have their 
analogy in us, but they are all alike incommunicable, inasmuch 
as they are all infinite. 

4th. The attributes of God, distinguished as natural and 
moral. The natural are all those which pertain to his exist- 
ence as an infinite, rational Spirit: e, g., eternity, immensity, 
intelligence, will, power. The moral are those additional attri- 



138 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

butes which belong to him as an infinite, righteous Spirit: e. g., 
justice, mercy, truth. 

I would diffidently propose the following fourfold clas- 
sification : 

(1.) Those attributes which equally qualify all the rest — 
Infinitude, that which has no bounds; absoluteness, that which is 
determined either in its being, or modes of being or action, by 
nothing whatsoever without itself. This includes immutability. 

(2.) Natural attributes. God is an infinite Spirit, self-existent, 
eternal, immense, simple, free of will, intelligent, powerful. 

(3.) Moral attributes. God is a Spirit infinitely righteous, 
good, true, and faithful. 

(4.) The consummate glory of all the divine perfections in 
union. The beauty of holiness. 

The Unity of God. 

1 2. In what two senses of the word is Unity predicated of God ? 

1st. God is unique : there is only one God to the exclusion 
of all others. 

2d. Notwithstanding the threefold personal distinction in 
the unity of the Godhead, yet these three Persons are numeri- 
cally one substance or essence, and constitute one indivisible 
God. 

13. How may the proposition, that God is one and indivisible, 
be proved ? 

1st. There appears to be a necessity in reason for conceiving 
of God as one. That which is absolute and infinite can not but 
be one and indivisible in essence. If God is not one, then it 
will necessarily follow that there are more gods than one. 

2d. The uniform representation of Scripture. — John x. 30. 

14. Prove from Scripture that the proposition, there is but one 
God, is true. 

Deut. vi. 4 ; 1 Kings viii. 60 ; Isa. xliv. 6 ; Mark xii. 29, 32 ; 
1 Cor. viii. 4; Eph. iv. 6. 

15. What is the argument from the harmony of creation in favor 
of the divine unity ? 

The whole creation, between the outermost range of teles- 
copic and of microscopic observation, is manifestly one indivi- 
sible system. But we have already (Chapter II.) proved the 
existence of God from the phenomena of the universe; and we 
now argue, upon the same principle, that if an effect proves 
the prior operation of a cause, and if traces of design prove a 



UNITY AND SPIRITUALITY OF GOD. 139 

designer, then singleness of plan and operation in that design 
and its execution prove that the designer is one. 

16. What is the argument upon this point from necessary ex- 
istence ? 

The existence of God is said to be necessary, because it has 
its cause from eternity in itself. It is the same in all duration 
and in all space alike. It is absurd to conceive of God's not 
existing at any time or in any portion of space, while all other 
existence whatsoever, depending upon his mere will, is contin- 
gent. But the necessity which is uniform in all times and in 
every portion of space, is evidently only one and indivisible, 
and can be the ground of the existence only of one God. 

This argument is logical, and has been prized highly by 
many distinguished theologians. It however appears to in- 
volve the error of presuming human logic to be the measure 
of existence. 

17. What is the argument from infinite perfection, in proof that 
there can he but one God ? 

God is infinite in his being and in all of his perfections. 
But the infinite, by including all, excludes all others, of the 
same kind. If there were two infinite beings, each would nec- 
essarily include the other, and be included by it, and thus they 
would be the same, one and identical. It is certain that the idea 
of the co-existence of two infinitely perfect beings is as repug- 
nant to human reason as to Scripture. 

18. What is polytheism ? and what dualism ? 

Polytheism, as the etymology of the word indicates, is a gen- 
eral term designating every system of religion which teaches 
the existence of a plurality of gods. 

Dualism is the designation of that system which recognizes 
two original and independent principles in the universe, the 
one good and the other evil. At present these principles are 
in a relation of ceaseless antagonism, the good ever struggling 
to oppose the evil, and to deliver its province from its baneful 
intrusion. 

The Spirituality of God. 

19. What is affirmed and what is denied in the proposition that 
God is a Spirit? 

We know nothing of substance except as it is manifested 
by its properties. Matter is that substance whose properties 
manifest themselves directly to our bodily senses. Spirit is 



140 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

that substance whose properties manifest themselves to us di- 
rectly in self-consciousness, and only inferentially by words and 
other signs or modes of expression through our senses. 

When we say God is a Spirit we mean — 

1st, Negatively, that he does not possess bodily parts or pas- 
sions; that he is composed of no material elements; that he is 
not subject to any of the limiting conditions of material exist- 
ence ; and, consequently, that he is not to be apprehended as the 
object of any of our bodily senses. 

2d. Positively, that he is a rational being, who distinguishes 
with infinite precision between the true and the false; that he 
is a moral being, who distinguishes between the right and the 
wrong ; that he is a free agent, whose action is self-determined 
by his own will; and, in fine, that all the essential properties of 
our spirits may truly be predicated of him in an infinite degree. 

This great truth is inconsistent with the doctrine that God 
is the soul of the world (anima mundi) a plastic organizing 
force inseparable from matter; also with the Gnostic doctrine 
of emanation, and with all forms of modern Materialism and 
Pantheism. 

20. Exhibit the proof that God is a Spirit. 

1st. It is explicitly asserted in Scripture. — John iv. 24. 

2d. It follows from our idea of infinite and absolute perfec- 
tions. Matter is obviously inferior to Spirit, and inseparable 
from many kinds of imperfections and limitations. Matter 
consisting of separate and ceaselessly reacting atoms can not 
be "one," nor "infinite," nor "immutable," etc. The idea that 
matter may be united with spirit in God, as it is in man, is 
felt to degrade him, and bind him fast under the limitations 
of time and space. 

3d. There is no trace anywhere of material properties in the 
Creator and Providential Governor of the universe — whereas 
all the evidence that a God exists conspires to prove also that 
he is a supremely wise, benevolent, righteous, and powerful 
person — that is, that he is a personal spirit. 

God's Kelation to Space. 

21. What is meant by the immensity of God? 

The immensity of God is the phrase used to express the fact 
that God is infinite in his relation to space, i. e., that the entire 
indivisible essence of God is at every moment of time cotempo- 
raneonsly present to every point of infinite space. 

This is not in virtue of the infinite multiplication of his Spirit, 
since he is eternally one and individual ; nor does it result from 



HIS RELATION TO SPACE. 141 

the infinite diffusion of his essence through infinite space, as air 
is diffused over the surface of the earth, since, being a Spirit he 
is not composed of parts, nor is he capable of extension, but the 
whole Godhead in the one indivisible essence is equally present 
in every moment of eternal duration to the whole of infinite 
space, and to every part of it. 

22. How does immensity differ from omnipresence? 

Immensity characterizes the relation of God to space viewed 
abstractly in itself. Omnipresence characterizes the relation of 
God to his creatures as they severally occupy their several posi- 
tions in space. The divine essence is immense in its own being, 
absolutely. It is omnipresent relatively to all his creatures. 

23. What are the different modes of the divine presence, and how 
may it be proved that he is everywhere present as to his essence? 

God may be conceived of as present in any place, or with any 
creature, in several modes, first, as to his essence ; second, as to 
his knowledge ; third, as manifesting that presence to any intel- 
ligent creature ; fourth, as exercising his power in any way in 
or upon the creature. As to essence and knowledge, his pres- 
ence is the same everywhere and always. As to his self-mani- 
festation and the exercise of his power, his presence differs 
endlessly in different cases in degree and mode. Thus God is 
present to the church as he is not to the world. Thus he is 
present in hell in the manifestation and execution of righteous 
wrath, while he is present in heaven in the manifestation and 
communication of gracious love and glory. 

24. Prove that God is omnipresent as to his essence. 

That God is everywhere present as to his essence is proved, 
first from Scripture (1 Kings viii. 27 ; Ps. exxxix. 7-10 ; Isa. lxvi. 1 ; 
Acts xvii. 27, 28); second, from reason. (1.) It follows neces- 
sarily from his infinitude. (2.) From the fact that his knowl- 
edge is his essence knowing, and his actions are his essence 
acting. Yet his knowledge and his power reach to all things. 

25. State the different relations that bodies, created spirits, and 
God sustain to spxice. 

Turretin says : Bodies are conceived of as existing in space 
circiimscriptively, because occupying a certain portion of space 
they are bounded by space upon every side. Created spirits do 
not occupy any portion of space, nor are they embraced by any, 
they are, however, in space definitely, as here and not 'there. 
God, on the other hand, is in space repletively, because in a tran- 
scendent manner his essence fills all space. He is included in 



142 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

no space; lie is excluded from none. Wholly present to each 
point, he comprehends all space at once. 

Time and Space are neither substances, nor qualities, nor 
mere relations. They constitute a genus by themselves, ab- 
solutely distinct from all other entities, and therefore defying 
classification. "We know that space and time exist; we know 
on sufficient evidence that God exists; but we have no means 
of knowing how space and time stand related to God. The 
view taken by Sir Isaac Newton, — 'Deus durat semper et adest 
ubique, et, existendo semper et ubique, durationem et spatium 
constituit' — is certainly a grand one, but I doubt much whether 
human intelligence can dictatorially affirm that it is as true as 
it is sublime." — McCosh, "Intuitions of the Mind," p. 212. 

The Relation of God to Time. 

26. What is eternity ? 

Eternity is infinite duration ; duration discharged from all 
limits, without beginning, without succession, and without end. 
The schoolmen phrase it &punctum stans, an ever-abiding present. 

We, however, can positively conceive of eternity only as du- 
ration indefinitely extended from the present moment in two 
directions, as to the past and as to the future, improperly 
expressed as eternity a parte ante, or past, and eternity a parte 
post, or future. The eternity of God, however, is one and 
indivisible. Eternitas est una individua et tota simul. 

27. What is time? 

Time is limited duration, measured by succession, either of 
thought or motion. It is distinguished in reference to our per- 
ceptions into past, present, and future. 

28. What relation does time hear to eternity ? 

Eternity, the unchanging present, without beginning or end, 
comprehends all time, and co-exists as an undivided moment, 
with all the successions of time as they appear and pass in their 
order. 

Thought is possible to us, however, only under the limita- 
tions of time and space. We can conceive of God only under 
the finite fashion of first purposing and then acting, of first 
promising or threatening and then fulfilling his word, etc. He 
that inhabiteth eternity infinitely transcends our understanding. 
Isa. lvii. 15. 

29. When we say that God is eternal, ivhat do ice affirm and 
what do we deny ? 



HIS ETERNITY AND IMMUTABILITY. 143 

We affirm, first, that as to his existence, he never had any 
beginning, and never will have any end; second, that as to the 
mode of his existence, his thoughts, emotions, purposes, and 
acts are, without succession, one and inseparable, the same for- 
ever; third, that he is immutable. 

We deny, first, that he ever had a beginning or ever will 
have an end; second, that his states or modes of being occur in 
succession ; third, that his essence, attributes, or purposes will 
ever change. 

30. In what sense are the acts of God spoken of as past, present, 
and future ? 

The acts of God are never past, present, or future as respects 
God himself, but only in respect to the objects and effects of 
his acts in the creature. The efficient purpose comprehending 
the precise object, time, and circumstance was present to him 
always and changelessly ; the event, however, taking place in 
the creature occurs in time, and is thus past, present, or future 
to our observation. 

31. In what sense are events past or future as it regards God? 

As God's knowledge is infinite, every event must, first, be 
ever equally present to his knowledge from eternity to eternity; 
second, these events must be known to him as they actually 
occur in themselves, e. g., in their true nature, relations, and suc- 
cessions. This distinction, therefore, holds true — God's knowl- 
edge of all events is without beginning, end, or succession; but 
he knows them as in themselves occurring in the successions of 
time, past, present, or future, relatively to one another. 

The Immutability of God. 

32. What is meant by the immutability of God ? 

By his immutability we mean that it folloAvs from the in- 
finite perfection of God; that he can not be changed by any 
thing from without himself; and that he will not change from 
any principle within himself. That as to his essence, his will, 
and his states of existence, he is the same from eternity to 
eternity. Thus he is absolutely immutable in himself. He 
is also immutable relatively to the creature, insomuch as his 
knowledge, purpose, and truth, as these are conceived by us and 
are revealed to us, can know neither variableness nor shadow of 
turning. — James i. 17. 

33. Prove from Scripture and reason that God is immutable. 



144 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

1st. Scripture : Mai. iii. 6 ; Ps. xxxiii. 11 ; Isa. xlvi. 10 ; 
James i. 17. 

2d. Eeason: (1.) God is self - existent. As he is caused 
by none, but causes all, so he can be changed by none, but 
changes all. (2.) He is the absolute being. Neither his exist- 
ence, nor the manner of it, nor his will, are determined by any 
necessary relation which they sustain to any thing exterior to 
himself. As he preceded all and caused all, so his sovereign 
will freely determined the relations which all things are per- 
mitted to sustain to him. (3.) He is infinite in duration, and 
therefore he can not know succession or change. (4.) He is 
infinite in all perfection, knowledge, wisdom, righteousness, 
benevolence, will, power, and therefore can not change, for 
nothing can be added to the infinite nor taken from it. Any 
change would make him either less than infinite before, or less 
than infinite afterwards. 

34. How can the creation of the world and the incarnation of 
the Son be reconciled ivith tlie immutability of God ? 

1st. As to the creation. The efficacious purpose, the will 
and power to create the world dwelleth in God from eternity 
without change, but this very efficacious purpose itself provided 
that the effect should take place in its proper time and order. 
This effect took place from God, but of course involved no 
shadow of change in God, as nothing was either taken from 
him or added to him. 

2d. As to the incarnation. The divine Son assumed a cre- 
ated human nature into personal union with himself. His un- 
created essence of course was not changed. His eternal person 
was not changed in itself, but only brought into a new relation. 
The change effected by that stupendous event occurred only in 
the created nature of the man Christ Jesus. 

The Infinite Intelligence of God. 
• 35. How does God's mode of knowing differ from ours ? 

God's knowledge is, 1st, his essence knowing; 2d, it is one 
eternal, all-comprehensive, indivisible act. 

(1.) It is not discursive, i. e., proceeding logically from the 
known to the unknoAvn; but intuitive, i. e., discerning all things 
directly in its own light. 

(2.) It is independent, i. <?., it does in no way depend upon 
his creatures or their actions, but solely upon his own infinite 
intuition of all things possible in the light of his own reason, 
and of all things actual and future in the light of his own eter- 
nal purpose. 



THE OBJECTS OF DIVINE KNOWLEDGE. 145 

(3.) It is total and simultaneous, not successive. It is one 
single, indivisible act of intuition, beholding all things in 
themselves, their relations and successions, as ever present. 

(4.) It is perfect and essential, not relative, i. e., he knows 
all things directly in their hidden essences, while we know 
them only by their properties, as they stand related to our 
senses. 

(5.) We know the present imperfectly, the past we remem- 
ber dimly, the future we know not at all. But God knows all 
things, past, present, and future, by one total, unsuccessive, all- 
comprehensive vision. 

36. How lias this divine perfection been defined by theologians? 

Turretin, Locus iii., Q. 12. — "Concerning the knowledge 
of God, before all else, two things are to be considered, viz., 
its mode and its object. The Mode of the divine knowledge 
consists in this, that he perfectly, individually, distinctly, and 
immutably knows all things, and his knowledge is thus distin- 
guished from the knowledge of men and angels. He knows 
all things perfectly, because he has known them through him- 
self, or his own essence, and not by the phenomena of things, 
as the creatures know objects. ... 2. He knows all things 
individually because he knows them intuitively, by a direct act 
of cognition, and not inferential ly, by a process of discursive 
reasoning, or by comparing one thing with another. . . . 
3. He knows all things distinctly, not that he unites by a dif- 
ferent conception the various predicates of things, but that he 
sees through all things by one most distinct act of intuition, 
and nothing, even the least thing, escapes him. ... 4. And 
he knows all immutably, because that with him there is no 
shadow of change, and he remaining himself unmoved, moves 
all things, and so perceives all the various changes of things, 
by one immutable act of cognition." 

37. How may the objects of divine knowledge be classified ? 

1st. God himself in his own infinite being. It is evident 
that this, transcending the sum of all other objects, is the only 
adequate object of a knowledge really infinite. 

2d. All possible objects, as such, whether they are or ever 
have been, or ever will be or not, seen in the light of his own 
infinite reason. 

3d. All things actual, which have been, are, or will be, he 
comprehends in one eternal, simultaneous act of knowledge, 
as ever present actualities to him, and as known to be such in 
the light of his own sovereign and eternal purpose. 



146 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

38. What is the technical designation of the hiowledge of things 
and what is the foundation of that knowledge? 



Its technical designation is scientia simplicis intelligentice, 
knowledge of simple intelligence, so called, because it is conceived 
by us as an act simply of the divine intellect, without any con- 
current act of the divine will. For the same reason it has been 
styled scientia necessaria, necessary knowledge, i. e., not volun- 
tary, or determined by will. The foundation of that knowl- 
edge is God's essential and infinitely perfect knowledge of his 
own omnipotence. 

39. What is the technical designation of the Jcnoivledge of things 
actual, whether past, present, or future, and ivhat is the foundation 
of that knowledge ? 

It is called scientia visionis, knowledge of vision, and scientia 
libera, free knowledge, because his intellect is in this case con- 
ceived of as being determined by a concurrent act of his will. 

The foundation of this knowledge is God's infinite knowl- 
edge of his own all-comprehensive and unchangeable eternal 
purpose. 

40. Prove that the knowledge of God extends to future contingent 
events. 

The contingency of events in our view of them has a two- 
fold ground: first, their immediate causes may be by us inde- 
terminate, as in the case of the dice ; second, their immediate 
cause may be the volition of a free agent. The first class are 
in no sense contingent in God's view. The second class are 
foreknown by him as contingent in their cause, but as none 
the less certain in their event- 
That he does foreknow all such is certain — 
1st. Scripture affirms it. — 1 Sam. xxiii. 11, 12; Acts ii. 23; 
xv. 18; Isa. xlvi. 9, 10. 

2d. He has often predicted contingent events future, at 
the time of the prophecy, which has been fulfilled in the event. 
Mark xiv. 30. 

3d. God is infinite in all his perfections, his knowledge, 
therefore, must (1) be perfect, and comprehend all things future 
as well as past, (2) independent of the creature. He knows all 
things in themselves by his own light, and can not depend 
upon the will of the creature to make his knowledge either 
more certain or more complete. 

41. How can the certainty of the foreknowledge of God, be recon- 
ciled with the freedom of moral agents in their acts ? 



SCIENTIA MEDIA. 147 

The difficulty here presented is of this nature. God's fore- 
knowledge is certain; the event, therefore, must be certainly 
future ; if certainly future, how can the agent be free in 
enacting it. 

In order to avoid this difficulty some theologians, on the 
one hand, have denied the reality of man's moral freedom, while 
others, on the other hand, have maintained that, God's knowl- 
edge being free, he voluntarily abstains from knowing what his 
creatures endowed with free agency will do. 

We remark — 

1st. God's certain foreknowledge of all future events and 
man's free agency are both certain facts, impregnably es- 
tablished by independent evidence. We must believe both, 
whether we can reconcile them or not. 

2d. Although necessity is inconsistent with liberty, moral 
certainty is not, as is abundantly shown in Chapter XV., 
Question 25. 

42. What is scientia media ? 

This is the technical designation of God's knowledge of 
future contingent events, presumed, by the authors of this dis- 
tinction, to depend not upon the eternal purpose of God making 
the event certain, but upon the free act of the creature as fore- 
seen by a special intuition. It is called scientia media, middle 
knowledge, because it is supposed to occupy a middle ground 
between the knowledge of simple intelligence and the knowledge 
of vision. It differs from the former, since its object is not all 
possible things, but a special class of things actually future. It 
differs from the latter, since its ground is not the eternal purpose 
of God, but the free action of the creature as simply foreseen. 

43. By whom was this distinction introduced, and for what 
purpose ? 

By Luis Molina, a Jesuit, born 1535 and died 1601, pro- 
fessor of theology in the University of Evora, Portugal, in 
his work entitled " Liberi arbitrii cum gratise donis, divina 
prsescientia, praedestinatione et reprobatione concordia." — Ha- 
genbach's "Hist, of Doc," vol. 2, p. 280. It was excogitated for 
the purpose of explaining how God might certainly foreknow 
what his free creatures would do in the absence of any sover- 
eign foreordination on his part, determining their action. Thus 
making his foreordination of men to happiness or misery to 
depend upon his foreknowledge of their faith and obedience, 
and denying that his foreknowledge depends upon his sover- 
eign foreordination. 



148 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 



44. What are tlie arguments against the validity of this dis- 
tinction ? 

1st. The arguments upon which it is based are untenable. 
Its advocates plead — (1.) Scripture. — 1 Sam. xxiii. 9-12; Matt. 
xi. 22, 23. (2.) That this distinction is obviously necessary, in 
order to render the mode of the divine foreknowledge consist- 
ent with man's free agency. 

To the first argument we answer, that the events mentioned 
in the above-cited passages of Scripture ivere not future. They 
simply teach that God, knowing all causes, free and necessary, 
knows how they would act under any proposed condition. 
Even we know that if we add fire to powder an explosion 
would ensue. This comes under the first class we cited above 
(Question 38), or the knowledge of all possible things. To the 
second argument we answer, that the certain foreknowledge 
of God involves the certainty of the future free act of his crea- 
ture as much as his foreordination does ; and that the sovereign 
foreordination of God, with respect to the free acts of men, only 
makes them certainly future, and does not in the least provide 
for causing those acts in any other way than by the free will 
of the creature himself acting freely. 

2d. This middle knowledge is unnecessary, because all pos- 
sible objects of knowledge, all possible things, and all things 
actually to be, have already been embraced under the two 
classes already cited (Questions 38, 39). 

3d. If God certainly foreknows any future event, then it 
must be certainly future, and he must have foreknown it to be 
certainly future, either because it was antecedently certain, or 
because his foreknowing it made it certain. If his foreknow- 
ing it made it certain, then his foreknowledge involves foreor- 
dination. If it was antecedently certain, then we ask, what 
could have made it certain, except what we affirm, the decree 
of God, either to cause it himself immediately, or to cause it 
through some necessary second cause, or that some free agent 
should cause it freely ? We can only choose between the fore- 
ordination of God and a blind fate. 

4th. This view makes the knowledge of God to depend upon 
the acts of his creatures exterior to himself. This is both 
absurd and impious, if God is infinite, eternal, and absolute. 

5th. The Scriptures teach that God does foreordain as well 
as foreknow the free acts of men. — Isa. x. 5-15; Acts ii. 23; 
iv. 27, 28. 

45. How does ivisdom differ from knowledge, and wherein does 
the wisdom of God consist ? 



THE INFINITE POWER OF GOD. 149 

Knowledge is a simple act of the understanding, apprehend- 
ing that a thing is, and comprehending its nature and relations, 
or how it is. 

Wisdom presupposes knowledge, and is the practical use 
which the understanding, determined by the will, makes of 
the material of knowledge. God's wisdom is infinite and eter- 
nal. It is conceived of by us as selecting the highest possible 
end, the manifestation of his own glory, and then in selecting 
and directing in every department of his operations the best 
possible means to secure that end. This wisdom is gloriously 
manifested to us in the great theatres of creation, providence, 
and grace. 

The Infinite Power of God. 

46. What is meant by the omnipotence of God ? 

Power is that efficiency which, by an essential law of 
thought, we recognize as inherent in a cause in relation to 
its effect. God is the uncaused first cause, and the causal 
efficiency of his will is absolutely unlimited by any thing out- 
side of the divine perfections themselves. 

47. What distinction has been marked between the Potestas ab- 
soluta, and the Potestas ordinata of God ? 

The Scriptures and right reason teach us that the causal 
efficiency of God is not confined to the universe of second- 
causes and their active properties and laws. The phrase Po- 
testas absoluta expresses the omnipotence of God absolutely 
considered in himself — and specifically that infinite reserve of 
power which remains with him, as a free personal attribute, 
above and beyond all the powers of nature and his ordinary 
providential actings upon and through them. Creation, mira- 
cles, etc., are exercises of this power of God. The Potestas or- 
dinata on the other hand is the power of God as it is now exer- 
cised in and through the established system of second causes, 
in the ordinary course of Providence. Kationalists and advo- 
cates of mere naturalism, who deny miracles, and any form 
of divine interference with the established order of nature, of 
course admit only the latter and deny the former mode of 
divine power. 

48. In what sense is the power of God limited and in ivhat sense 
is it unlimited ? 

We are conscious with respect to our own causal efficiency. 
1st. That it is very limited. We have direct control only over 
the course of our thoughts, and the contractions of a few 
muscles. 2d. That we depend upon the use of means to pro- 



150 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

duce the effects we design. 3d. We are dependent upon out- 
ward circumstances which limit and condition us continually. 
The power inherent in the divine will on the other hand can 
produce whatever effects he intends immediately, and when he 
condescends to use means he freely endows them with what- 
ever efficiency they possess. All outward circumstances of 
every kind are his own creation, conditioned upon his will, 
and therefore incapable of limiting him in any way. He is 
absolutely unlimited in the exercise of his power. He can not 
do wrong, nor work contradictions, because his power is the 
causal efficiency of an infinitely rational and righteous essence. 
His power therefore is limited only by his own perfections. 

49. Is the distinction in us between poioer and ivill a perfection 
or a defect, and does it exist in God ? 

It is objected that if our power was equal to our design, and 
every volition resulted immediately in act, we would not be 
conscious of the difference between power and will. We admit 
that when a man's power fails to be commensurate with his will 
it is a defect — and that this never is the case with God. But 
on the other hand when a man is conscious that he possesses 
powers which he might but does not will to exercise, he is 
conscious that it is an excellence — and that his nature is the 
more perfect for the possession of such reserves of power than 
it would otherwise be. To hold that there is nothing in God 
which is not in actual exercise, that his power extends no 
further than his will, is to make him no greater than his finite 
creation. The actions of a great man impress us chiefly as the 
exponents of vastly greater power which remains in reserve. 
So it is with God. 

50. How can absolute omnipotence be proved to belong to God ? 

1st. It is asserted by Scripture. — Jer. xxxii, 17; Matt. xix. 
26; Lukei. 37; Rev. xix. 6. 

2d. It is necessarily involved in the very idea of God as an 
infinite being. 

3d. Although we have seen but part of his ivays (Job xxvi. 
14), yet our constantly extending experience is ever revealing 
to us new and more astonishing evidences of his power, which 
always indicate an inexhaustible reserve. 

The Will of God. 

51. What is meant by the ivill of God ? 

The will of God is the infinitely and eternally wise, powerful, 
and righteous essence of God willing. In our conception it is 



THE WILL OF GOD. 151 

that attribute of the Deity to which we refer his purposes and 
decrees as their principle. 

52. In ivhat sense is the will of God said to be free, and in what 
sense necessary ? 

The will of God is the wise, powerful, and righteous essence 
of God willing. His will, therefore, in every act is certainly 
and yet most freely both wise and righteous. The liberty of 
indifference is evidently foreign to his nature, because the per- 
fection of wisdom is to choose the most wisely, and the perfec- 
tion of righteousness is to choose the most righteously. 

On the other hand, the will of God is from eternity abso- 
lutely independent of all his creatures and all their actions. 

53. What is intended by the distinction between the decretive and 
the preceptive ivill of God ? 

The decretive will of God is God efficaciously purposing the 
certain futurition of events. The preceptive will of God is God, 
as moral governor, commanding his moral creatures to do that 
which he sees it right and wise that they in their circumstances 
should do. 

These are not inconsistent. What he wills as our duty may 
very consistently be different from what he wills as his purpose. 
What it is right for him to permit may be wrong for him to 
approve, or for us to do. 

54. What is meant by the distinction between the secret and 
revealed will of God ? 

The secret will of God is his decretive will, called secret, 
because although it is sometimes revealed to man in the proph- 
ecies and promises of the Bible, yet it is for the most part hidden 
in God. 

The revealed will of God is his preceptive will, which is 
always clearly set forth as the rule of our duty. — Deut. xxix. 29. 

55. In what sense do tlie Arminians maintain the distinction 
between the antecedent and consequent wiU of God, and ivhat are the 
objections to tJieir view of the subject ? 

This is a distinction invented by the schoolmen, and adopted 
by the Arminians, for reconciling the will of God with their 
theory of the free agency of man. 

They call that an antecedent act of God's will which precedes 
the action of the creature, e. g., before Adam sinned God willed 
him to be happy. They call that a consequent act of God's will 
which followed the act of the creature, and is consequent upon 



152 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

that act, e. g., after Adam sinned God willed him to suffer the 
penalty due to his sin. 

It is very evident that this distinction does not truly repre- 
sent the nature of God's will, and its relation to the acts of his 
creatures : first, God is eternal, and therefore there can be no 
distinction in his purposes as to time ; second, God is eternally 
omniscient and omnipotent. If he wills any thing, therefore, 
he must from the beginning will the means to acomplish it, and 
thus secure the attainment of the end willed. Otherwise God 
must have, at the same time, two inconsistent wills with regard 
to the same object. The truth is that God, eternally and un- 
changeably, by one comprehensive act of will, willed all that 
happened to Adam from beginning to end in the precise order 
and succession in which each event occurred ; third, God is in- 
finitely independent. It is degrading to God to conceive of 
him as first willing that which he has no power to effect, and 
then changing his will consequently to the independent acts 
of his creatures. 

It is true, indeed, that because of the natural limits of our 
capacities we necessarily conceive of the several intentions of 
God's one, eternal, indivisible purpose, as sustaining a certain 
logical (not temporal), relation to each other as principal and 
consequent. Thus we conceive of God's first (in logical order) 
decreeing to create man, then to permit him to fall, then to 
elect some to everlasting life, and then to provide a redemp- 
tion. — Turretin. 

56. In ivhat sense do Arminians hold the distinction between 
the absolute and conditional luill of God, and ivhat are the objec- 
tions to that view ? 

In their view that is the absolute will of God which is sus- 
pended upon no condition without himself, e. g., his decree to 
create man. That is the conditional will of God which is sus- 

E ended upon a condition, e. g., his decree to save those that 
elieve, i. e., on condition of their faith. 

It is evident that this view is entirely inconsistent with the 
nature of God as an eternal, self-existent, independent being, 
infinite in all his perfections. It degrades him to the position 
of being simply a co-ordinate part of the creation, mutually 
limiting and being limited by the creature. 

The mistake results from detaching a fragment of God's will 
from the one whole, all-comprehensive, eternal purpose. It is 
evident that, when properly viewed as eternal and one, God's 
purpose must comprehend all conditions, as well as their con- 
sequents. God's will is suspended upon no condition, but he 



THE ABSOLUTE JUSTICE OF GOD. 153 

eternally wills the event as suspended upon its condition, and 
its condition as determining the event. 

It is admitted by all that God's preceptive will, as expressed 
in commands, promises, and threatenings, is often suspended 
upon condition. If we believe we shall certainly be saved. 
This is the relation which God has immutably established 
between faith as the condition, and salvation as the conse- 
quent, i. e., faith is the condition of salvation. But this is 
something very different from saying that the faith of Paul 
was the condition of God's eternal purpose to save him, be- 
cause the same purpose determined the faith as the condition, 
and the salvation as its consequent. See further, Chapter X., 
on the decrees. 

57. In what sense is the will of God said to be eternal? 

It is one eternal, unsuccessive, all-comprehensive act, abso- 
lutely determining either to effect or to permit all things, in all 
of their relations, conditions, and successions, which ever were, 
are, or ever will be. 

58. In what sense may the will of God be said to be the rule of 
righteousness ? 

It is evident that in the highest sense, with respect to God 
willing, his mere will can not be regarded as the ultimate 
ground of all righteousness, any more than it can be as the 
ultimate ground of all wisdom. Because, in that case, it would 
follow, first, that there would be no essential difference between 
right and wrong in themselves, but only a difference arbitrarily 
constituted by God himself; and, second, that it would be 
senseless to ascribe righteousness to God, for then that would 
be merely to say that he wills as he wills. The truth is, that 
his will acts as his infinitely righteous wisdom sees to be right. 

On the other hand, God's revealed will is to us the absolute 
and ultimate rule of righteousness, alike when he commands 
things in themselves indifferent, and thus makes them right, as 
when he commands things in themselves essentially right, be- 
cause they are right. 



The Absolute Justice of God. 

59. What is meant by the distinctions, absolute and relative, 
rectoral, distributive, and punitive or vindicatory justice of God ? 

The absolute justice of God is the infinite moral perfection 
or universal righteousness of his own being. 



154 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

The relative justice of God is his infinitely righteous nature, 
viewed as exercised in his relation to his moral creatures, as 
their moral governor. 

This last is called rectoral, when viewed as exercised gen- 
erally in administering the affairs of his universal government, 
in providing for and governing his creatures and their actions. 
It is called distributive, when viewed as exercised in giving 
unto each creature his exact proportionate due of rewards or 
punishment. It is called punitive or vindicatory, when viewed 
as demanding and inflicting the adequate and proportionate 
punishment of all sin, because of its intrinsic ill desert. 

60. What are the different opinions as to the nature of the 
punitive justice of God, i. e., ivhat are the different reasons as- 
signed ivhy God punishes sin ? 

The Socinians deny the punitive justice of God altogether, 
and maintain that he punishes sin simply for the good of the 
individual sinner, and of society, only so far as it may be inter- 
ested in his restraint or improvement. Those theologians who 
maintain the governmental theory of the Atonement, hold that 
God punishes sin not because of a changeless principle in 
himself demanding its punishment, but for the good of the 
universe, on the basis of great and changeless principles of 
governmental policy. Thus resolving justice into a form of 
general benevolence. Leibnitz held that "justice is goodness 
conducted by wisdom." This principle assumes that happiness 
is the chief good. That the essence of virtue is the desire to 
promote happiness, and that consequently the end of justice 
can only be to prevent misery. This is the foundation of the 
Governmental theory of the Atonement. See Chapter XXV. 
See Park on the "Atonement." 

Some hold that the necessity for the punishment of sin is 
only hypothetical, i. e., results only from the eternal decree 
of God. 

The true view is that God is immutably determined by his 
own eternal and essential righteousness to visit every sin with 
a proportionate punishment. 

61. Prove that disinterested benevolence is not the whole of 
virtue. 

1st. Some exercises of disinterested benevolence, for example, 
natural parental affection, are purely instinctive, and have no 
positive moral character. 

2d. Some exercises of disinterested benevolence, such as the 
weak yielding of a judge to sympathy with a guilty man or his 
friends, are positively immoral. 



THE JUSTICE OF GOD. 155 

3d. There are virtuous principles incapable of being resolved 
into disinterested benevolence, such as proper prudential re- 
gard for one's own highest good; aspiration and effort after 
personal excellence; holy abhorrence of sin for its own sake, 
and just punishment of sin in order to vindicate righteousness. 

4th. The idea of oughtness is the essential constitutive idea 
of virtue. No possible analysis of the idea of benevolence will 
give the idea of moral obligation. This is simple, unresolvable, 
ultimate. Oughtness is the genus, and benevolence one of the 
species comprehended in it. 

62. State the evidence derived from the universal principles of 
human nature, that the justice of God must be an ultimate and 
unchangeable principle of his nature, determining him to punish sin 
because of its intrinsic ill desert. 

The obligation of a righteous ruler to punish sin, the intrin- 
sic ill desert of sin, the principle that sin ought to be punished, 
are ultimate facts of moral consciousness. They can not be 
resolved into any other principle whatsoever. This is proved — 

1st. Because they are involved in every awakened sinner's 
consciousness of his own demerit. — Ps. li. 4. "I have done 
this evil in thy sight; that thou mightest be just when thou 
speakest, and clear when thou judgest." In its higher degree 
this feeling rises into remorse, and can be allayed only by ex- 
piation. Thus many murderers have had no rest until they 
have given themselves up to the law, when they have experi- 
enced instant relief. And millions of souls have found peace 
in the application of the blood of Jesus to their wounded 
consciences. 

2d. All men judge thus of the sins of others. The con- 
sciences of all good men are gratified when the just penalty 
of the law is executed upon the offender, and outraged when 
he escapes. 

3d. This principle is witnessed to by all the sacrificial rites 
common to all ancient religions, by the penances in some form 
universal even in modern times, by all penal laws, and by the 
synonyms for guilt, punishment, justice, etc., common to all 
languages. 

4th. It is self-evident, that to inflict an unjust punishment 
is itself a crime, no matter how benevolent the motive which 
prompts it, nor how good the effect which follows it. It is no 
less seli-evident that it is the justice of the punishment so de- 
served which renders its effect on the community good, and 
not its effect on the community which renders it just. To 
hang a man for the good of the community is both a crime 
and a blunder, unless the hanging is justified by the ill desert 



156 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

of the man. In that case his ill desert is seen by all the com- 
munity to be the real reason of the hanging. 

63. Prove the same from the nature of the divine law. 

Grotius in his great work, "Defensio Fidei Catholicce Be Sa~ 
tisfactione Christi" in which he originates the Governmental 
Theory of the Atonement, maintains that the divine law is a 
product of the divine will, and therefore at the option of God 
relaxable, alike in its preceptive and its penal elements. But 
the truth is (a) that the penalty is an essential part of the 
divine law ; (b) that the law of God, as to all its essential prin- 
ciples of right and wrong, is not a product of the divine will, 
but an immutable transcript of the divine nature ; (c) therefore 
the law is immutable and must needs be fulfilled in every iota 
of it. ^ 

This is proved — 1st. Because fundamental principles must 
have their changeless ground in the divine nature, or (a) other- 
wise the distinction between right and wrong would be purely 
arbitrary — whereas they are discerned by our moral intuitions 
to be absolute and independent of all volition divine or human; 

(b) otherwise it would be meaningless to say that God is right- 
ous if righteousness be an arbitrary creature of his own will; 

(c) because he declares that he "can not lie," that "he can not 
deny himself." 

2d. The Scriptures declare that the law can not be relaxed, 
that it must be fulfilled. — John vii. 23, and x. 35; Luke xxiv. 44; 
Matt. v. 25, 26. 

3d. The Scriptures declare that Christ came to fulfil the law 
not to relax it. — Matt v. 17, 18 ; Eom. hi. 31 ; x. 4. 

64. How may it be argued from the independence and absolute 
self-sufficiency of God, that punitive justice is an essential attribute 
of his nature ? 

It is inconsistent with these essential attributes to conceive 
of God as obliged to any course of action by the external exi- 
gencies of his creation. Both the motive and the end of his 
action must be in himself. — Col. i. 16; Eom. xi. 36; Eph. i. 5, 6; 
Bom. ix. 22, 23. If he punishes sin because determined so to 
do by the principles of his own nature, then he acts independ- 
ently. But if he resorts to this merely as the necessary means 
of restraining and governing his creatures, then their actions 
control his. 

65. How may it be proved from God's love of holiness and 
hatred of sin ? 

God's love for holiness and hatred of sin is represented in 



THE JUSTICE OF GOD. 157 

Scripture as essential and intrinsic. He loves holiness for its 
own sake. He hates sin and is determined to punish it be- 
cause of its intrinsic ill desert. He hates the wicked every 
day. — Ps. v. 5; vii. 11. "To me belongeth vengeance and 
recompense." — Deut. xxxii. 35. "According to their deeds 
accordingly he will repay." — Isa. lix. 18; 2 Thess. i. 6. "See- 
ing it is a ricjhteous thing with God to recompense tribulation 
to them that trouble you." — Kom. i. 32. " Knowing the judg- 
ment of God that they which commit such things are worthy 
of death." — Deut. xvii. 6; xxi. 22. 

66. Hoiv can this truth be proved from ivhat the Scriptures 
teach as to the nature and necessity of the atonement of Christ ? 

As to its nature the Scriptures teach that Christ suffered 
the penalty of sin vicariously in the place and stead of his 
elect people, and that he thus expiated their guilt, and recon- 
ciled God and redeemed their souls by giving himself the 
ransom price demanded in their stead. The Scriptures every- 
where, and in every way teach that the design of Christ's death 
was to produce a sin-expiating effect upon the Governor of the 
moral universe, and not a moral impression either upon the 
heart of the individual sinner, or upon the public conscience 
of the intelligent universe. All this will be proved at length 
under Chapters XXV and XXXIII. 

As to the necessity of the Atonement the Scriptures teach 
that it was absolute. That Christ must die or sinners perish. 
Gal. ii. 21, and iii. 21. But the propriety of producing a moral 
impression upon each sinner personally,, or upon the public 
mind of the universe generally, can not give rise to an absolute 
necessity on the part of God — since God who created the uni- 
verse and all its members might, of course, if he so pleased, 
produce moral impressions upon them of whatever kind, either 
without means, or by whatsoever means he pleases. An abso- 
lute necessity must have its ground in the unchangeable nature 
of God, which lies back of and determines his will in all its 
acts. Therefore the eternal nature of God immutably deter- 
mines him to punish all sin. 

" Political Science," President Theodore B. Woolsey, vol. I., pp. 330-335. 
"The theory that correction is the main end of punishment will not 
bear examination. (1.) The state is not a humane institution. (2.) The 
theory makes no distinction between crimes. If a murderer is appar- 
ently reformed in a week, the ends of detention are accomplished, and 
he should be set free; while the petty offender must stay for months 
or years until the inoculation of good principles becomes manifest. 
(3.) What kind of correction is to be aimed at ? Is it such as will in- 
sure society itself against his repeating his crime ? In that case it is 
society, and not the person himself who is to be benefited by the cor- 



158 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

rective process. Or must a thorough cure, a recovery from selfishness 
and covetousness, an awakening of the highest principle of soul be aimed 
at; an established church, in short, be set up in the house of correction ? 

"The explanation that the state protects its own existence, or the inno- 
cent inhabitants of the country, by striking its subjects with awe and 
deterring them from evil-doing through punishment, is met by admitting 
that, while this effect is real and important, it is not as yet made out that 
the state has a right to do this. Crime and desert of punishment must 
be pre-supposed before the moral sense can be satisfied with the inflic- 
tion of evil. And the measure of the amount of punishment, supplied 
by the public good for the time, is most fluctuating and tyrannical; 
moreover mere awe, unaccompanied by an awakening of the sense of 
justice, is as much a source of hatred as a motive to obedience. " 

" The theory that in punishing an evil-doer, the state renders to him 
his deserts, is the only one that seems to have a solid foundation. It 
assumes that moral evil has been committed by disobedience to rightful 
commands, that according to a propriety which commends itself to our 
moral nature it is fit and right that evil, physical or mental, suffering 
or shame, should be incurred by the wrong-doer, and that in all forms 
of government over moral beings there ought to be a power able to 
decide how much evil ought to follow special kinds and instances of 
transgressions. The state is in fact, as St. Paul calls it, the minister of 
God to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. But only in a very 
limited sphere and for special ends. . . It punishes acts, not thoughts ; 
intentions appearing in acts, not feelings; it punishes persons within a 
certain territory over which it- has the jurisdiction, and perhaps its sub- 
jects who do wrong elsewhere, but none else; it punishes acts hurtful to 
its own existence and to the community of its subjects; it punishes not 
according to an exact scale of deserts, for it can not, without a revelation, 
find out what the deserts of individuals are, nor what is the relative guilt 
of different actions of different persons." * 

The Absolute Goodness of God. 

67. What distinctions are signified by the terms benevolence, 
complacency, mercy, and grace ? 

The infinite goodness of God is a glorious perfection which 
pre-eminently characterizes his nature, and which he, in an 
infinitely wise, righteous, and sovereign manner, exercises 
towards his creatures in various modes according to their rela- 
tions and conditions. 

Benevolence is the goodness of God viewed generically. It 
embraces all his creatures, except the judicially condemned on 
account of sin, and provides for their welfare. 

The love of complacency is that approving affection with 
which God regards his own infinite perfections, and every 
image and reflection of them in his creatures, especially in the 
sanctified subjects of the new creation. 

God's mercy, of which the more passive forms are pity and 

* This extract is slightly condensed. 



THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 159 

compassion, is the divine goodness exercised with respect to 
the miseries of his creatures, feeling for them, and making pro- 
vision for their relief, and in the case of impenitent sinners, 
leading to long-suffering patience. 

The grace of God is his goodness seeking to communicate 
his favors, and, above all, the fellowship of his own life and 
blessedness to his moral creatures, — who, as creatures, must be 
destitute of all merit, — and pre-eminently his electing love, se- 
curing at infinite cost the blessedness of its objects, who, as 
sinful creatures, were positively ill deserving. 

68. State a false definition of divine benevolence often given, and 
state how it is rightly defined. 

The infinite Benevolence of God is often defined as that 
attribute in virtue of which he communicates to all his crea- 
tures the greatest possible amount of happiness, i. e., as great as 
they are capable of receiving, or as great as is consistent with 
the attainment of the greatest amount of happiness on the ag- 
gregate in the moral universe. 

But this supposes that God is limited by something out of 
himself, that he could not have secured more happiness for his 
creatures than he has actually done. It also makes happiness 
paramount in the view of God to excellence. 

Benevolence should, on the other hand, be defined as that 
attribute in virtue of which God produces all the happiness in 
the universe, which is consistent with the end he had in view 
in its creation. These ends stand in this order. 1. The mani- 
festation of his own glory. 2. The highest moral excellence 
of his creatures. 3. Their highest blessedness in himself. — Dr. 
Charles Hodge's Lectures. 

69. What are the sources of our knowledge of the fact that God 
is benevolent? 

1st. Reason. Benevolence is an essential element of moral 
perfection. God is infinitely perfect, and therefore infinitely 
benevolent. 

2d. Experience and observation. The wisdom of God in 
designing, and the power of God in executing, in the several 
spheres of creation, providence, and revealed religion, have evi- 
dently been constantly determined by benevolent intentions. 

3d. The direct assertions of Scripture. — Ps. clxv. 8, 9; 1 
John iv. 8. 

70. How may it be proved that God is gracious and ivilling to 
forgive sin ? 

Neither reason nor conscience can ever raise a presumption 



160 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

on this subject. It is the evident duty of fellow-creatures mu- 
tually to forgive injuries, but we have nothing to do with for- 
giving sin as sin. 

It appears plain that there can be no moral principle making 
it essential for a sovereign ruler to forgive sin as trangression 
of law. All that reason or conscience can assure us of in that 
regard is, that sin can not be forgiven without an atonement. 
The gracious affection which should prompt such a ruler to 
provide an atonement, must, from its essential nature, be per- 
fectly free and sovereign, and therefore it can be known only 
so far as it is graciously revealed. The gospel is, therefore, 
good news confirmed by signs and wonders. — Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7; 
Eph. i. 7-9. 

71. What are the different theories or assumptions on which it 
has been attempted to reconcile the existence of sin with the goodness 
of God? 

1st. It has been argued by some that free agency is essential 
to a moral system, and that absolute independence of will is 
essential to free agency. That to control the wills of free 
agents is no more an object of power than the working of 
contradictions; and consequently God, although omnipotent, 
could not prevent sin in a moral system without violating its 
nature. — See Dr. N. W. Taylor's "Concio ad Clerum," 1828. 

2d. Others have argued that sin was permitted by God in 
infinite wisdom as the necessary means to the largest possible 
measure of happiness in the universe as a whole. 

On both of these we remark — 

1st. That the first theory above cited is founded on a false 
view of the conditions of human liberty and responsibility (see 
below, Chapter XV.); and, further, that it grossly limits the 
power of God by representing him as desiring and attempting 
what he can not effect, and that it makes him dependent upon 
his creatures. 

2d. With reference to the second theory it should be remem- 
bered that God's own glory, and not the greatest good of the 
universe, is the great end of God in creation and providence. 

3d. The permission of sin, in its relation both to the right- 
eousness and goodness of God, is an insolvable mystery, and 
all attempts to solve it only darken counsel with words without 
knowledge. It is, however, the privilege of our faith to know, 
though not of our philosophy to comprehend, that it is assur- 
edly a most wise, righteous, and merciful permission ; and that 
it shall redound to the glory of God and to the good of his 
chosen. 



THE TRUTH OF GOD. 161 

72. Hoiu can the attributes of goodness and justice be shoicn to 
be consistent ? 

Goodness and justice are the several aspects of one un- 
changeable, infinitely wise, and sovereign moral perfection. 
God is not sometimes merciful and sometimes just, nor so far 
merciful and so far just, but he is eternally infinitely merciful 
and just. Relatively to the creature this infinite perfection of 
nature presents different aspects, as is determined by the judg- 
ment which infinite wisdom delivers in each individual case. 

Even in our experience these attributes of our moral nature 
are found not to be inconsistent in principle, though our want 
both of wisdom and knowledge, a sense of our own un worthi- 
ness, and a mere physical sympathy, often sadly distract our 
judgments as well as our hearts in adjusting these principles 
to the individual cases of life. 

God's Absolute Truth. 

73. What is truth considered as a divine attribute? 

The truth of God in its widest sense is a perfection which 
qualifies all his intellectual and moral attributes. His knowl- 
edge is infinitely true in relation to its objects, and his wisdom 
unbiassed either by prejudice or passion. His justice and his 
goodness in all their exercises are infinitely true to the perfect 
standard of his own nature. In all outward manifestations of 
his perfections to his creatures, God is always true to his nature 
— always self-consistently divine. This attribute in its more 
special sense qualifies all God's intercourse with his rational 
creatures. He is true to us as well as to himself; and thus is 
laid the foundation of all faith, and therefore of all knowledge. 
It is the foundation of all confidence, first, in our senses ; second, 
in our intellect and conscience; third, in any authenticated, su- 
pernatural revelation. 

The two forms in which this perfection is exercised in rela- 
tion to us are, first, his entire truth in all his communications; 
second, his perfect sincerity in undertaking and faithfulness in 
discharging all his engagements. 

74. Hoio can the truth of God be reconciled icith the apparent 

non-performance of some of his threatenings? 

The promises and threatenings of God are sometimes abso- 
lute, when they are always infallibly fulfilled in the precise 
sense in which he intended them. They are often also condi- 
tional, made to depend upon the obedience or repentance of the 



162 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

creature. — Jonah iii. 4, 10; Jer. xviii. 7, 8. This condition may 
be either expressed or implied, because the individual case is 
understood to be, of course, governed by the general principle 
that genuine repentance and faith delivers from every threat- 
ening and secures every promise. 

75. How can tlie invitations and exhortations of tJie Scriptures, 
addressed to those whom God does not propose to save, be reconciled 
with Ms sincerity ? 

See above (Question 42), the distinction between God's pre- 
ceptive and his decretive will. His invitations and exhorta- 
tions are addressed to all men in good faith: first, because it is 
every man's duty to repent and believe, and it is God's preceptive 
will that every man should; second, because nothing ever pre- 
vents the obedience of any sinner, except his own unwilling- 
ness; third, . because in every case in which the condition is 
fulfilled the promise implied will be performed; fourth, God 
never has promised to enable every man to believe ; fifth, these 
invitations and exhortations are not addressed to the reprobate 
as such, but to all sinners as such, with the avowed purpose of 
saving thereby the elect. 

The Infinite Sovereignty of God. 

76. What is meant by tJie sovereignty of God ? 

His absolute right to govern and dispose of all his creatures, 
simply according to his own good pleasure. 

77. Prove that this right is asserted in Scripture. 

Dan. iv. 25, 35; Eev. iv. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 15; Rom. ix. 15-23. 

78. On what does the absolute sovereignty of God rest ? 

1st. His infinite superiority in being and in all his perfec- 
tions to any and to all his creatures. 

2d. As creatures they were created out of nothing, and are 
now sustained in being by his power, for his own glory and 
according to his own good pleasure. — Rom. xi. 36. 

3d. His infinite benefits to us, and our dependence upon 
and blessedness in him, are reasons why we should not only 
recognize, but rejoice, in this glorious truth. The Lord reign- 
eth, let the earth rejoice. 

79. Is there any sense in which there are limits to the sovereignty 
of God? 

The sovereignty of God, viewed abstractly as one attribute 
among many, must of course be conceived of as qualified by all 



THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 163 

the rest. It can not be otherwise than an infinitely wise, right- 
eous, and merciful sovereignty. 

But God, viewed concretely as an infinite sovereign, is abso- 
lutely unlimited by any thing without himself. " He doeth 
according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the 
inhabitants of the earth." — Dan. iv. 35. 



The Infinite Holiness of God. 
80. What is meant by the holiness of God? 

The holiness of God is not to be conceived of as one attri- 
bute among others; it is rather a general term representing 
the conception of his consummate perfection and total glory. 
It is his infinite moral perfection crowning his infinite intelli- 
gence and power. There is a glory of each attribute, viewed 
abstractly, and a glory of the whole together. The intellectual 
nature is the essential basis of the moral. Infinite moral per- 
fection is the crown of the Godhead. Holiness is the total 
glory thus crowned. 

Holiness in the Creator is the total perfection of an infinitely 
righteous intelligence. Holiness in the creature is not mere 
moral perfection, but perfection of the created nature of moral 
agents after their kind, in spiritual union and fellowship with 
the infinite Creator. — 1 John i. 3. 

The word holiness, as applied to God in Scripture, repre- 
sents, first, moral purity — Lev. xi. 44; Ps. cxlv. 17; second, 
his transcendently august and venerable majesty. — Isa. vi. 3; 
Ps. xxii. 3; Rev. iv. 8. 

To "sanctify the Lord," i. e., to make him holy, is to de- 
clare and adore his holiness by venerating his august majesty 
wherever and whereinsoever his person or character is repre- 
sented. — Isa. viii. 13; xxix. 23; Ezek. xxxviii. 23; Matt. vi. 9; 
1 Pet, iii. 15. 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE HOLY TRINITY. 

1. What is the etymology and meaning of the ivord Trinity, 
and when teas it introduced into the language of the Church ? 

The word trinity (Trinitas) is derived either from tres-unus, 
trinus, or from rpias, three in one, or the one which is three, 
and the three which are one ; not triplex — trinitas not triplicitas. 
This word is not found in the Scriptures. Technical terms are 
however an absolute necessity in all sciences. In this case 
they have been made particularly essential because of the sub- 
tle perversions of the simple, un technical Biblical statements 
by infidels and heretics. This term, as above defined, admir- 
ably expresses the central fact of the great doctrine of the one 
essence eternally subsisting as three Persons, all the elements 
of which are explicitly taught in the Scriptures. The Greek 
word rpms was first used in this connection by Theophilus, 
bishop of Antioch, in Syria, from a. d. 168 to a. d. 183. The 
Latin term Trinitas was first used by Tertullian, circum. 220. 
Mosheim's "Eccle. Hist," vol. I., p. 121, note 7; Hagenbach, 
"Hist, of Doc," vol. I., 129. 

2. What is the theological meaning of the term substantia (sub- 
stance), and what change has occurred in its usage ? 

Substantia, as now used, is equivalent to essence, independ- 
ent being. Thus, in the Godhead, the three persons are the 
same in substance, i. e., of one and the same indivisible, nu- 
merical essence. 

The word was at first used by one party in the church as 
equivalent to subsistentia (subsistence), or mode of existence. 
In which sense, while there is but one essence, there are three 
substantias or persons, in the Godhead. — See Turretin, Tom. I., 
locus iii., ques. 23. 

3. What other terms have been used as the equivalents of sub- 
stantia in the definitions of this doctrine? 

The Greek 6v6ia and cpvdii. The Latin essentia, natura. The 
English essence, substance, nature, being. 



DEFINITION OF TERMS. 165 

4. What is the theological meaning of the word subsistentia 
(subsistence) ? 

It is used to signify that mode of existence which distin- 
guishes one individual thing from every other individual thing, 
one person from every other person. As applied to the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, subsistence is that mode of existence which 
is peculiar to each of the divine persons, and which in each 
constitutes the one essence a distinct person. 

5. What is tJie New Testament sense of the word vTt66za6ii 
(hypostasis) ? 

This word, as to its etymology, is precisely equivalent to 
substance; it comes from v<pidrr/jui, "to stand under." 

In the New Testament it is used five times — 

1st. Figuratively, for confidence, or that state of mind which 
is conscious of a firm foundation, 2 Cor. ix. 4 ; xi. 17 ; Heb. iii. 14, 
which faith realizes, Heb. xi. 1. 

2d. Literally, for essential nature, Heb. i. 3. — See Sampson's 
"Com. on Heb." 

6. In what sense is this word used by the ecclesiastical writers ? 

Until the middle of the fourth century this word, in con- 
nection with the doctrine of the Trinity, was generally used 
in its primary sense, as equivalent to substance. It is used 
in this sense in the creed published by the Council of Nice 
a. d. 325, and again in the decrees of the Council of Sardica, in 
Illyria, a. d. 347. These agreed in affirming that there is but 
one hypostasis in the Godhead. Some, however, at that time 
understanding the word in the sense of person, its usage was 
changed by general consent, chiefly through the influence of 
Athanasius, and ever since it has been established in theolog- 
ical language in the sense of person, in contradistinction to 
ovdia, essence. It has been transferred into the English lan- 
guage in the form of an adjective, to designate the hypostatical 
or personal union of two natures in the God-man. 

7. What is essential to personality, and how is the tuorcl per- 
son to be defined in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity ? 

The Latin word, " supposition" signifies a distinct individual 
existence, e. g., a particular tree or horse. A person is "sup- 
position intellectuale" a distinct individual existence, to which 
belongs the properties of reason and free will. Throughout 
the entire range of our experience and observation of personal 
existence among creatures, personality rests upon and appears 



166 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

to be inseparable from distinction of essence. Every distinct 
person is a distinct soul, with or without a body. 

That distinguishing mode of existence which constitutes 
the one divine essence co-ordinately three separate persons, is 
of course an infinite mystery which we can not understand, 
and therefore can not adequately define, and which we can 
know only so far as it is explicitly revealed. All that we know 
is, that this distinction, which is called personality, embraces 
all those incommunicable properties which eternally belong to 
Father, Son, or Holy Ghost separately, and not to all in com- 
mon; that it lays the foundation for their concurrence in coun- 
sel, their mutual love and action one upon another, as the 
Father sending the Son, and the Father and Son sending the 
Spirit, and for use of the personal pronouns I, thou, he, in the 
revelation which one divine person gives of himself and of 
the others. 

Person is defined by Gerhard — " Persona est substantia 
individua, intelligens, incommunicabilis, quae non sustentatur 
in alio, vel ab alio." In relation to this great mystery of the 
divine trinity of persons in the unity of essence Calvin's defi- 
nition of Person is better because more modest. " By person, 
then, I mean a subsistence in the divine essence — a subsistence 
which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from 
them by incommunicable properties." — "Institutes," Book I., 
Chap. 13, § 6. 

8. What other terms have been used by theologians as the equiv- 
alent of Person in this connection ? 

Greek, V7t66ra6i$, and npodGortov — aspect; Latin, persona, hypo- 
stasis, subsistentia, aspectus; English, person, hypostasis. — Shedd's 
"Hist. Christ Doc," B. III., Ch. 3, § 5. 

9. What is meomt by the terms 6/ioovdior (of the same substance), 
and 6/toiovdiov (of similar substance)? 

In the first general council of the church which, consisting 
of three hundred and eighteen bishops, was called together by 
the Emperor Constantine at Nice, in Bithynia, a. d. 325, there 
were found to be three great parties representing different 
opinions concerning the Trinity. 

1st. The orthodox party, who maintained the opinion now 
held by all Christians, that the Lord Jesus is, as to his divine 
nature, of the same identical substance with the Father. These 
insisted upon applying to him the definite term 6noov6iov (ho- 
moousion), compounded of ujnos, same, and otdia, substance, to 
teach the great truth that the three persons of the Godhead are 
one God, because they are of the same numerical essence. 



THE SEVERAL PROPOSITIONS INVOLVED. 167 

2d. The Arians, who maintained that the Son of God is the 
greatest of all creatures, more like God than any other, the 
only-begotten Son of God, created before all worlds, through 
whom God created all other things, and in that sense only divine. 
They held that the Son was krepoovdiov of different or generi- 
ically unlike essence from the Father. 

3d. The middle party, styled Semiarians, who confessed 
that the Son was not a creature, but denied that he was in the 
same sense God as the Father is. They held that the Father is 
the only absolute self-existent God; yet that from eternity he, 
by his own free will, caused to proceed from himself a divine 
person of like nature and properties. They denied, therefore, 
that the Son was of the same substance (homoousion) with the 
Father, but admitted that he was of an essence truly similar, 
and derived from the Father (homoiousion, 6jaoi6v6zov , from, 
ojuoios, like, and 6v6i<x i substance), generically though not nu- 
merically one. 

The opinions of the first, or orthodox party, prevailed at that 
council, and have ever since been represented by the technical 
phrase, homoousian. 

For the creed promulgated by that council, see Chapter VII. 

10. What are the several propositions essentially involved in the 
doctrine of the Trinity ? 

1st. There is but one God, and this God is one, i. e., 
indivisible. 

2d. That the one indivisible divine essence, as a whole, 
exists eternally as Father, and as Son, and as Holy Ghost; 
that each person possesses the whole essence, and is consti- 
tuted a distinct person by certain incommunicable properties, 
not common to him with the others. 

3d. The distinction between these three is a personal distinc- 
tion, in the sense that it occasions (1) the use of the personal 
pronouns, I, thou, he, (2) a concurrence in counsel and a mutual 
love, (3) a distinct order of operation. 

4th. Since there is but one divine essence, and since all attri- 
butes or active properties are inherent in and inseparable from 
the essence to which they pertain, it follows that all the divine 
attributes must be identically common to each of the three per- 
sons who subsist in common of the one essence. Among all 
creatures every distinct person is a distinct numerical sub- 
stance, and possesses a distinct intelligence, a distinct will, 
etc. In the Godhead, however, there is but one substance, and 
one intelligence, one will, etc., and yet three persons eternally 
co-exist of that one essence, and exercise that one intelligence 
and one will, etc. In Christ on the contrary, there are two 



168 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

spirits, two intelligences, two wills, and yet all the while one 
indivisible person. 

5th. These divine persons being one God, all the divine 
attributes being common to eaqh in the same sense, never- 
theless they are revealed in the Scriptures in a certain order 
of subsistence and of operation. (1.) Of subsistence insomuch 
as the Father is neither begotten nor proceedeth, while the Son 
is eternally begotten by the Father, and the Spirit eternally 
proceedeth from the Father and the Son; (2.) of operation, in- 
somuch that the first person sends and operates through the 
second, and the first and second send and operate through the 
third. 

Hence the Father is always set forth as first, the Son as 
second, the Spirit as third. 

6th. While all the divine attributes are common equally to 
the three persons, and all divine works wrought ad extra, such 
as creation, providence, or redemption, are predicated alike of 
the one divine being — the one God considered absolutely — and 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost sever- 
ally ; nevertheless the Scriptures attribute some divine works 
wrought ad intra, exclusively to each divine person respect- 
ively, e. g., generation to the Father, filiation to the Son, pro- 
cession to the Holy Ghost; and there are likewise some divine 
works wrought ad extra which are attributed pre-eminently to 
each person respectively, e. g., creation to the Father, redemp- 
tion to the Son, and sanctification to the Holy Ghost. 

In order, therefore, to establish this doctrine in all its parts 
by the testimony of Scripture, it will be necessary for us to 
prove the following propositions in their order: 

1st. That God is one. 

2d. That Jesus of Nazareth, as to his divine nature, was 
truly God, yet a distinct person from the Father. 

3d. That the Holy Spirit is truly God, yet a distinct person. 

4th. That the Scriptures directly teach a trinity of persons 
in one Godhead. 

5th. It will remain to gather what the Scriptures reveal as 
to the eternal and necessary relations which these three divine 
persons sustain to each other. These are distributed under the 
following heads: (1) The relation which the second person sus- 
tains to the first, or the eternal generation of the Son ; (2) the 
relation which the third person sustains to the first and second, 
or the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost ; and, (3) their per- 
sonal properties and order of operation, ad extra. 

I. God is one, and there is but one God. 
The proof of this proposition, from reason and Scripture, 



THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 169 

has been fully set forth above, in Chap. VIII., on the Attributes 
of God, questions 12-18. 

The answer to the question, How the co-ordinate existence 
of three distinct persons in the Trinity can be reconciled with 
this fundamental doctrine of the divine unity, is given below 
in question 94 of this chapter. 

II. Jesus of Nazareth, as to his divine nature, is truly God, and 

YET A DISTINCT PERSON FROM THE FATHER. 

11. What different views have been entertained with respect to 
the person of Christ ? 

The orthodox doctrine as to the person of Christ, is that he 
from eternity has existed as the co-equal Son of the Father, con- 
stituted of the same infinite self-existent essence with the Father 
and the Holy Ghost. 

• The orthodox doctrine as to his person as at present consti- 
tuted, since his incarnation, is set forth in chap. XXIII. An 
account of the different heretical opinions as to his person are 
given below, in questions 96-99, of this chapter. 

12. Hoiv far did the Jews at the time of Christ expect the Mes- 
siah to appear as a divine person ? 

When Christ appeared, it is certain that the great mass of 
the Jewish people had ceased to entertain the Scriptural ex- 
pectation of a divine Saviour, and only desired a temporal 
prince, in a pre-eminent sense, a favorite of heaven. It is 
said, however, that scattered hints in some of the rabbinical 
writings indicate that some of the more learned and spiritual 
still continued true to the ancient faith. 

13. How may tlie pre-existence of Jesus before his birth by the 
Virgin be proved from Scripture ? 

1st. Those passages which say that he is the creator of the 
world.— John i. 3; Col. i. 15-18. 

2d. Those passages which directly declare that he was with 
the Father before the world was; that he was rich, and pos- 
sessed glory. — John i. 1, 15, 30; vi. 62; viii. 58; xvii. 5; 2 Cor. 
viii. 9. 

3d. Those passages which declare that he " came into the 
world," "came down from heaven." — John hi. 13, 31; xiii. 3; 
xvi. 28; 1 Cor. xv. 47. 

14. Hoiv can it be proved that the Jehovah who manifested him- 
self as the God of the Jews under the old economy was the second 
person of the Trinity, who became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth ? 

As this fact is not affirmed in any single statement of 



170 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

Scripture, it can be established only by a careful comparison 
of many passages. The evidence, as compiled from Hill's 
Lects., Book 111., ch. v., may be summed up as follows: 

1st. All the divine appearances of the ancient economy are 
referred to one 'person. — Compare Gen. xviii. 2, 17; xxviii. 13; 
xxxii. 9, 31; Ex. hi. 14, 15; xiii. 21; xx. 1, 2; xxv. 21; Deut. 
iv. 33, 36, 39; Neh. ix. 7-28. This one person is called Jeho- 
vah, the incommunicable name of God, and at the same time 
angel, or one sent. — Compare Gen. xxxi. 11, 13; xlviii. 15, 16; 
Hosea xii. 2, 5. Compare Ex. iii. 14, 15, with Acts vii. 30-35 ; 
and Ex. xiii. 21, with Ex. xiv. 19 ; and Ex. xx. 1, 2, with Acts 
vii. 38; Isa. lxiii. 7, 9. 

2d. But God the Father has been seen by no man (John 
i. 18 ; vi. 46) : neither could he be an angel, or one sent by any 
other ; yet God the Son has been seen (1 John i. 1, 2), and sent 
(John v. 36). 

3d. This Jehovah, who was at the same time the angel, or 
one sent, of the old economy, was also set forth by the proph- 
ets as the Saviour of Israel, and the author of the new dis- 
pensation. In Zech. ii. 10, 11, one Jehovah is represented as 
sending another. See Micah v. 2. In Mai. iii. 1, it is declared 
that " the Lord," " the messenger of the covenant," shall come 
to his own temple. This applied to Jesus (Mark i. 2). — Com- 
pare Ps. xcvii. 7, with Heb. i. 6; and Isa. vi. 1-5, with John 
xii. 41. 

4th. Certain references in the New Testament to passages 
in the Old appear directly to imply this fact. Compare Ps. 
lxxviii. 15, 16, 35, with 1 Cor. x. 9. 

5th. The Church is one under all dispensations, and Jesus 
from the beginning is the Redeemer and Head of the Church; 
it is, therefore, most consistent with all that has been revealed 
to us as to the offices of the three divine persons in the scheme 
of redemption, to admit the view here presented. See also John 
viii. 56, 58; Matt, xxiii. 37; 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. 

15. In what form are the earliest disclosures made in the Old 
Testament of the existence and agency of a Person distinct from 
God and yet as divine ? 

In the earlier books an Angel is spoken of, sent from God, 
often appearing to men, and yet himself God. — Gen. xvi. 7-13. 
The Angel of Jehovah appears to Hagar, claims divine power, 
and is called God. — Gen. xviii. 2-33. Three angels appeared 
to Abraham, one of whom is called Jehovah, v. 17. — Gen. 
xxxii. 25. An Angel wrestles with Jacob and blesses him as 
God, and in Hosea, xii. 3-5, that Angel is called God. — Ex. 
iii. 2. The Angel of Jehovah appeared to Moses in the burn- 



THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 171 

ing bush, and in the following verses this angel is called Jeho- 
vah, and other divine titles are ascribed to him. This Angel 
led the Israelites in the wilderness. — Ch. xiv. 19 ; Isa. Ixiii. 9. 
Jehovah is represented as saving his people by the Angel of his 
Presence. Thus Malachi iii. 1 — "The Lord, the Angel of the 
covenant shall suddenly come to his temple." This applied to 
Christ.— Mark i. 2. 

16. What evidence of the divinity of the Messiah does the 2d 
Psalm present ? 

It declares him to be the Son of God, and as such to receive 
universal power over the whole earth and its inhabitants. All 
are exhorted to submit to him, and to trust him, on pain of his 
anger. In Acts xiii. 33, Paul declares that Psalm refers to 
Christ. 

17. What evidence is furnished by the 4:5th Psalm ? 

The ancient Jews considered this Psalm addressed to the 
Messiah, and the fact is established by Paul (Heb. i. 8, 9). 
Here, therefore, Jesus is called God, and his throne eternal. 

18. What evidence is furnished by Psalm 110 ? 

That this Psalm refers to the Messiah is proved by Christ 
(Matt. xxii. 43, 44), and by Paul (Heb. v. 6; vii. 17). He is 
here called David's Lord (Adonai), and invited to sit at the right 
hand of Jehovah until all his enemies be made his footstool. 

19. What evidence is furnished by Isaiah ix. 6 ? 

This passage self-evidently refers to the Messiah, as is con- 
firmed by Matt. iv. 14-16. It declares explicitly that the child 
born "is also the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince 
of Peace." 

20. What is the evidence furnished by Micah v. 2 ? 

This was understood by the Jews to refer to Christ, which 
is confirmed by Matt. ii. 6, and John vii. 42. The passage 
declares that his goings forth have been " from ever of old," 
i. e., from eternity. 

21. What evidence is furnished by Malachi iii. 1, 2 ? 

This passage self-evidently refers to the Messiah, as is con- 
firmed by Mark i. 2. 

The Hebrew term (Adonai), here translated Lord, is never 
applied to any other than the supreme God. The temple, which 
was sacred to the presence and worship of Jehovah, is called 



172 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

his temple. And in verse 2d, a divine work of judgment is 
ascribed to him. 

22. What evidence is afforded by the way in ivhich the writers 
of the New Testament apply the writings of tJw Old Testament to 
Christ ? 

The apostles frequently apply the language of the Old Tes- 
tament to Christ, when it is evident that the original writers 
intended to speak of Jehovah, and not of the Messiah as such. 

Psalm 102 is evidently an address to the supreme Lord, 
ascribing to him eternity, creation, providential government, 
worship, and the hearing and answering of prayer. But Paul 
(Heb. i. 10-12) affirms Christ to be the subject of the address. 
In Isa. xlv. 20-25, Jehovah speaks and asserts his own supreme 
Lordship. But Paul, in Rom. xiv. 11, quotes a part of Jeho- 
vah's declaration with regard to himself, to prove that we must 
all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. — Compare also 
Isa. vi. 3, with John xii. 41. 

23. What is the general character of the evidence upon this 
subject afforded by the New Testament ? 

This fundamental doctrine is presented to us in every indi- 
vidual writing, and in every separate paragraph of the New 
Testament, either by direct assertion or by necessary implica- 
tion, as may be ascertained by every honest reader for himsel£ 
The mass of this testimony is so great, and is so intimately in- 
terwoven with every other theme in every passage, that I have 
room here to present only a general sample of the evidence, 
classified under the usual heads. 

24. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine titles to 
Christ. 

John i. 1 ; xx. 28 ; Acts xx. 28 ; Rom. ix. 5 ; 2 Thess. i. 12 ; 
1 Tim. iii. 16; Titus ii. 13; Heb. i. 8; 1 John v. 20. 

25. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine perfections 
to Christ. 

Eternity. — John i. 2; viii. 58; xvii. 5; Rev. i. 8, 17, 18; 
xxii. 13. 

Immutability. — Heb. i. 11, 12, and xiii. 8. 

Omnipresence. — John iii. 13; Matt, xviii. 20; xxviii. 20. 

Omniscience. — Matt. xi. 27; John ii. 23-25; xxi. 17; Rev. 
ii. 23. 

Omnipotence. — John v. 17; Heb. i. 3; Rev. i. 8; xi. 17. 



DIVINITY AND PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 173 

26. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine works to 
Christ. 

Creation.— John i. 3, 10; Col. i. 16, 17. 

Preservation and Providence. — Heb. i. 3; Col. i. 17; Matt, 
xxviii. 18. 

Miracles. — John v. 21, 36. 

Judgment— 2 Cor. v. 10; Matt. xxv. 31, 32; John v. 22. 

A work of grace, including election. — John xiii. 18. 

Sanctification, Eph. v. 26; sending the Holy Ghost, John 
xvi. 7, 14; giving eternal life, John x. 28; Turretin, Tom. I., 
L. 3, Q. 28. 

27. Prove that the New Testament teaches that supreme wor- 
ship should be paid to Christ 

Matt, xxviii. 19; John v. 22, 23; xiv. 1; Acts vii. 59, 60; 
1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; Phil. ii. 9, 10; Heb. i. 6; Kev. i. 5, 6; 
v. 11, 12; vii. 10. 

28. Prove that the Son, although God, is a distinct person from 
the Father. 

This fact is so plainly taught in Scripture, and so univer- 
sally implied, that the Sabellian system, which denies it, has 
never obtained any general currency. 

Christ is sent by the Father, comes from him, returns to 
him, receives his commandment, does his will, loves him, is 
loved by him, addresses prayer to him, uses the pronouns thou 
and he when speaking to and of him. This is necessarily im- 
plied, also, in the relative titles, Father and Son. See the 
whole New Testament. 

In establishing the doctrine of the Trinity, as far as the 
Second Person is involved, the stress lies altogether in prov- 
ing the absolute Divinity of Christ, his distinct personality 
being so obvious as to be practically beyond dispute. While 
in vindicating the truth of the doctrine as it respects the Third 
Person the whole stress lies in proving His distinct person- 
ality, his absolute divinity being so clearly revealed as to be 
unquestionable. 

III. The Holy Ghost is truly God, yet a distinct person. 

29. What sects have held that the Holy Ghost is a creature ? 

The divinity of the Holy Ghost is so clearly revealed in 
Scripture that very few have dared to call it in question. The 
early controversies of the orthodox with the Arians precedent 
and consequent to the Council of Nice, a. d. 325, to such a 
degree absorbed the mind of both parties with the question of 



174 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

the divinity of the Son, that very little prominence was given in 
that age to questions concerning the Holy Ghost. Arius, how- 
ever, is said to have taught that as the Son is the first and 
greatest creature of the Father, so the Holy Ghost is the first 
and greatest creature of the Son; a nri6}xa Hri6/.iaro^ i a creature 
of a creature. — See Neander's "Ch. Hist.," Vol. I., pp. 416-420. 
Some of the disciples of Macedonius, bishop of Constanti- 
nople, a. d. 341-360, are said to have held that the Holy Ghost 
was not Supreme God. These were condemned by the second 
General Council, which met at Constantinople, a. d. 381. This 
council defined and guarded the orthodox faith, by adding de- 
finite clauses to the simple reference which the ancient creed 
had made to the Holy Ghost. — See the Creed of the Council of 
Constantinople, Chapter 7. 

30. By whom has the Holy Spirit been regarded merely as an 
energy of God? 

Those early heretical sects, generally styled Monarchians 
and Patripassians, all with subordinate distinctions taught that 
there was but one person as well as one essence in the Godhead, 
who, in different relations, is called Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. 
In the sixteenth century Socinus, who taught that Jesus Christ 
was a mere man, maintained that the term Holy Ghost is in 
Scripture used as a designation of God's energy, when exer- 
cised in a particular way. This is now the opinion of all mod- 
ern Unitarians and Rationalists. 

31. How can it be proved that all the attributes of personality 
are ascribed to the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures ? 

The attributes of personality are such as intelligence, voli- 
tion, separate agency. Christ uses the pronouns, 1, thou, he, 
when speaking of the relation of the Holy Spirit to himself 
and the Father: "I will send him." " He will testify of me." 
"Whom the Father will send in my name." Thus he is sent; 
he testifies; he takes of the things of Christ, and shows them 
to us. He teaches and leads to all truth. He knows, because 
he searches the deep things of God. He works all supernat- 
ural gifts, dividing to every man as he wills. — John xiv. 17, 26; 
xv. 26; 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11; xii. 11. He reproves, glorifies, helps, 
intercedes. — John xvi. 7-13 ; Rom. viii. 26. 

32. Hoiv may his personality be argued from the offices ivhich 
he is said in the Scriptures to execute ? 

The New Testament throughout all its teachings discovers 
the plan of redemption as essentially involving the agency of 
the Holy Ghost in applying the salvation which it was the 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 175 

work of the Son to accomplish. He inspired the prophets and 
apostles ; he teaches and sanctifies the church ; he selects her of- 
ficers, qualifying them by the communication of special gifts at 
his will. He is the advocate, every Christian is his client. He 
brings all the grace of the absent Christ to us, and gives it effect 
in our persons in every moment of our lives. His personal dis- 
tinction is obviously involved in the very nature of these func- 
tions which he discharges. — Luke xii. 12 ; Acts v. 32 ; xv. 28 ; 
xvi. 6; xxviii. 25; Rom. xv. 16; 1 Cor. ii. 13; Heb. ii. 4; iii. 7; 
2 Pet. i. 21. 

33. What argument for the personality of the Holy Ghost may 
be deduced from the formula of baptism ? 

Christians are baptized "in the name of the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost." It would be inconsistent with every law of 
language and reason to speak of the "name" of an energy, or 
to associate an energy co-ordinately with two distinct persons. 

34. How may his personality be proved by what is said of the 
sin against the Holy Ghost ? 

In Matt, xii. 31, 32; Mark iii. 28, 29; Luke xii. 10, this sin 
is called " blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." Now, blas- 
phemy is a sin committed against a person, and it is here dis- 
tinguished from the same act as committed against the other 
persons of the Trinity. 

35. How can such expressions as "giving" and "pouring out 
the Spirit" be reconciled with his personality ? 

These and other similar expressions are used figuratively to 
set forth our participation in the gifts and influences of the 
Spirit. It is one of the most natural and common of all figures 
to designate the gift by the name of the giver. Thus we are 
said "to put on Christ," "to be baptized into Christ," etc. — 
Eph. v. 30; Rom. xiii. 14; Gal. iii. 27. 

36. Show that the names of God are applied to the Spirit. 

Compare Ex. xvii. 7, and Ps. xcv. 7, with Heb. iii. 7-11. — 
See Acts v. 3, 4. 

37. What divine attributes do the Scriptures ascribe to him ? 

Omnipresence. — Ps. cxxxix. 7; 1 Cor. xii. 13. 
Omniscience. — 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11. 
Omnipotence. — Luke i. 35; Rom. viii. 11. 

38. What agency in the external world do the Scriptures ascribe 
to him? 



176 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

Creation. — Gen. i. 2; Job xxvi. 13; Ps. civ. 30. 
The power of working miracles. — Matt. xii. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 
9-11. 

39. How is his supreme divinity established by what the Script- 
ures teach of his agency in redemption ? 

He is declared to be the immediate agent in regeneration, 
John iii. 6 ; Titus iii. 5 ; and in the resurrection of our bodies, 
Eom. viii. 11. His agency in the generation of Christ's human 
nature, in his resurrection, and in the inspiration of the Script- 
ures, were exertions of his divine power in preparing the re- 
demption which he now applies. 

40. Hoiv can such expressions as, u he shall not speak of himself" 
be reconciled with his divinity ? 

This and other similar expressions are to be understood as 
referring to the official work of the Spirit; just as the Son is 
said in his official character to be sent by and to be subordinate 
to the Father. The object of the Holy Ghost, in his official 
work in the hearts of men, is not to reveal the relations of his 
own person to the other persons of the Godhead, but simply to 
reveal the mediatorial character and work of Christ. 



IV. The Scriptures directly teach a Trinity of Persons in 
One Godhead. 

41. How is this trinity of persons directly taught in the formula 
of baptism ? 

Baptism in the name of God implies the recognition of God's 
divine authority, his covenant engagement to give us eternal 
life, and our engagement to render him divine worship and 
obedience. Christians are baptized thus into covenant relation 
with three persons distinctly named in order. The language 
necessarily implies that each name represents a person. The 
nature of the sacrament proves that each person must be 
divine. — See Matt, xxviii. 19. 

42. How is this doctrine directly taught in the formula of the 
apostolical benediction ? 

See 2 Cor. xiii. 14. We have here distinctly named three 
persons, and each communicating a separate blessing, accord- 
ing to his own order and manner of operation. The benevo- 
lence of the Father in designing, the grace of the Son in the 
acquisition, the communion of the Holy Ghost in the applica- 
tion of salvation. These are three distinct personal names, 



DIRECT STATEMENTS OF THE DOCTRINE. 177 

three distinct modes of personal agency, and each equally 
divine. 

43. What evidence is afforded by the narrative of Christ's 
baptism ? 

See Matt. iii. 13-17. Here also we have presented to us 
three persons distinctly named and described as severally act- 
ing, each after his own order. The Father speaking from 
heaven, the Spirit descending like a dove and lighting upon 
Christ, Christ acknowledged as the beloved Son of God ascend- 
ing from the water. 

44. State the argument from John xv. 26, and the context. 

In this passage again we have three persons severally 
named at the same time, and their relative action affirmed. 
The Son is the person speaking of the Father and the Spirit, 
and claiming for himself the right of sending the Spirit. The 
Father is the person from whom the Spirit proceeds. Of the 
Spirit the Son says that " he will come," "he will be sent," "he 
proceedeth," " he will testify." 

45. What is the state of the evidence with regard to the gen- 
uineness of 1 John v. 7 ? 

I have not room in which to present a synopsis of the argu- 
ment for and against the genuineness of the disputed clause 
which could be of any value. — See " Home's Intro.," Vol IV., 
Part II., chapter iv., section 5. 

It will suffice to say — 

1st. The disputed clause is as follows, including part of the 
eighth verse: u in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy 
Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear 
ivitness in earth." 

2d. Learned and pious men are divided in their opinions as 
to the preponderance of the evidence; the weight of opinion 
inclining against the genuineness of the clause. 

3d. The doctrine taught is so scriptural, and the grammat- 
ical and logical connection of the clause with the rest of the 
passage is so intimate, that for the purpose of edification, in the 
present state of our knowledge, the clause ought to be retained, 
although for the purpose of establishing doctrine, it ought not to 
be relied upon. 

4th. The rejection of this passage does in no degree lessen 
the irresistible weight of evidence of the truth of the orthodox 
doctrine of the Trinity which the Scriptures afford. 



178 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

46. What passages in the Old Testament imply the existence 
of more than one person in the Godhead? 

Mark the use of the plural in the following passages. — Gen. 
i. 26; iii. 22; xi. 7; Isa. vi. 8; Compare the three-fold repeti- 
tion of the name Jehovah (Num. vi. 24-26) with the apostol- 
ical benediction — 2 Cor. xiii. 14. Mark also in Isa. vi. 3, the 
threefold repetition of the ascription of holiness. 

47. What passages in the Old Testament speak of the Son as 
a distinct person from the Father, and yet as divine? 

In Ps. xlv. 6, 7, we have the Father addressing the Son as 
God, and anointing him. — See also Ps. ex. 1 ; Isa. xliv. 6, 7, 14. 

The prophecies always set forth the Messiah as a person 
distinct from the Father, and yet he is called " Mighty God," 
etc. — Isa. ix. 6; Jer. xxiii. 6. 

48. What passages of the Old Testament speak of the Spirit 
as a distinct person from the Father, and yet as divine ? 

Gen. i. 2; vi. 3; Ps. civ. 30; exxxix. 7; Job xxvi. 13; Isa. 
xlviii. 16. 

V. It remains for us to consider what the Scriptures teach con- 
cerning the Eternal and Necessary Relations which the 
Three Divine Persons sustain to each other. 

(I.) The Eelation which the Second Person sustains to the 
First, or the Eternal Generation of the Son. 

49. What is the idiomatic use of the Hebreiv ivord 1? (son) ? 

It is used in the sense — 1st. Of son. 2d. Of descendant; 
hence in the plural " children of Israel," for Israelites. Also 
when joined to a name of place or nation to denote inhabitants 
or citizens thereof, as "sons of Zion," etc. 3d. Of pupil, disciple, 
worshipper; thus "sons of the prophets" (1 Kings xx. 35); and 
"sons of God," applied, (1) to kings, Ps. ii. 7; (2) to angels, 
Gen. vi. 2; (3) to worshippers of God, his own people, Deut. 
xiv. 1. 4th. In combination with substantives, expressing age 
or quality, etc.; thus, "sons of years," for aged, Lev. xii. 6; 
"son of Belial," for worthless fellow, Deut. xiii. 13; "son of 
death," for one deserving to die, 1 Sam. xx. 31; "a hill son 
of fatness," for a fruitful hill. The same idiom has been car- 
ried into the Greek of the New Testament. — See Gesenius' 
"Heb. Lex." 

50. In what sense are men called " sons of God" in Scripture? 



THE ETERNAL SON SHIP OF CHRIST. 179 

The general idea embraced in the relation of sonship in- 
cludes — 1st, similarity and derivation of nature; 2d, parental 
and filial love; and 3d, heirship. 

In this general sense all God's holy, intelligent creatures are 
called his sons. The term is applied in an eminent sense to 
kings and magistrates who receive dominion from God (Ps. 
lxxxii. 6), and to Christians who are the subjects of spiritual 
regeneration and adoption (Gal. iii. 26), the special objects of 
divine favor (Matt. v. 9), and are like him (Matt. v. 45). When 
applied to creatures, whether men or angels (Job i. 6), this 
word is always used in the plural. In the singular it is applied 
only to the second person of the Trinity, with the single ex- 
ception of its application once to Adam (Luke iii. 38), when 
the reason is obviously to mark the peculiarity of his derivation 
from God immediately without the intervention of a human 
father. 

51. What reasons do Socinians assign for the application of 
the term Son of God to Christ ? 

1st. Some Socinians hold that he is called Son of God only 
as an official title, as it is applied in the plural to ordinary 
kings and magistrates. 

2d. Other Socinians hold that he was called Son of God 
only because he was brought into being by God's supernatural 
agency, and not by ordinary generation. To maintain this 
they appeal to Luke i. 35. 

52. Hoto can you answer the Socinian- argument derived from 
Luke i. 35; to the effect that Christ teas called "Son of God" 
because of his miraculous birth alone ? 

We answer — 1st. If that reason is the fundamental one 
why the phrase "Son of God" is generally applied to Christ 
it should render him the " Son of the Spirit," who overshad- 
owed the Virgin, and not the " Son of the Father." But he is 
never once so called, nor is any such relation ever indicated 
in Scripture. 

2d. Even if this was one reason for the application of the 
phrase it would not follow that there are not other and deeper 
reasons for its use revealed in Scripture — which will be proved 
below to be the fact. 

3d. Probably the real design of the passage was simply to 
convey to Mary the knowledge that in consequence of his 
supernatural generation her son, that is the man child born 
of her, is to be called "the Son of God." It was not a common 
child — the thing born of her was to be regarded as peculiarly 



180 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

related to God, until the complete revelation of his eternal Son- 
ship as a divine person. 

53. What reason do Avians assign for the ascription of this title 
to Christ? 

Arians hold that he is so called because he was created by 
God more in his own likeness than any other creature, and first 
in the order of time. 

54. What reason do some Trinitarians, who at this point depart 
from the orthodox faith, give for the application of this title to 
Christ, and to ivhat passages do they appeal ? 

They hold that the title " Son of God " applies to Christ not 
as Logos, the eternal Second Person of the Trinity, but as The- 
anthropos. They object to the orthodox doctrine of the eternal 
Sonship of Christ. 

1st. That Sonship implies derivation and hence inferiority. 

2d. That the term "Son" in many passages is applied to 
him interchangeably with the term "Christ" and other official 
titles, belonging to his Mediatorial office and not to his eternal 
relations within the Godhead. They refer to Matt. xvi. 16; 
John i. 49, etc. 

3d. That in Ps. ii. 7 it is expressly declared that Christ is 
constituted " Son of God " in time, instead of his co-existing as 
such from eternity with the Father by necessity of nature. 

4th. The same is argued from Rom. i. 4. 

55. Show that the orthodox doctrine is not open to the objection 
that it represents the Second Person as inferior to the First. 

This objection derives all its plausibility from unduly press- 
ing the analogy between the human relations of Father and 
Son and the divine relations signalized by the same terms. The 
one may be so far the best existing analogy of the other known 
to us, as to lay the foundation for the proper application of the 
terms derived from the known relation to designate the un- 
known, while we must remember that the two things are 
necessarily as different as the material is from the spiritual, 
as the temporal is from the eternal, as the finite is from the 
infinite. Besides it rests upon a misapprehension of the ortho- 
dox doctrine as to the following particulars: 

1st. The church doctrine is that the Person not the essence of 
the Son is generated by the Father. The self-existent essence 
of the Godhead belongs to the Son equally with the Father 
from eternity. 

2d. That the Father begets the Son by an eternal and nec- 
essary constitutional (not voluntary) act. This prevents the 



THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 181 

Son from being in any sense dependent upon or inferior to 
the Father, and distinguishes the church doctrine from Semi- 
arianism, see below, Question 97. 

56. Shoio that their objection to the church doctrine based upon 
Matt. xvi. 16; John i. 49, etc., does not hold good. 

In none of these passages is it affirmed that he is Son as the 
Christ, i. e., as Mediator, but that being the eternal Son of God 
he is the Christ, the King of Israel, etc. 

57. Prove that neither the 2d Psalm nor Rom. i. 4, teach that 
Christ was made Son of God. 

Dr. Alexander says (see "Com. on Psalms") with relation to 
Psalm ii. 7, that it means simply, "Thou art my Son, this day 
I am thy Father, now always eternally thy Father. Even if 
4 this day ' be referred to the inception of the filial relation, it is 
thrown indefinitely back by the form of reminiscence, or narra- 
tion, in the first clause of the verse. 'Jehovah said to me,' but 
when? If understood to mean from everlasting the form of 
expression would be perfectly in keeping with the other figur- 
ative forms by which the Scriptures represent things really 
ineffable in human language." 

Rom. i. 4 — "And declared (opidOevros) to be the Son of God 
with power according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrec- 
tion from the dead." The word 6pi6Qsvros everywhere else in 
the New Testament signifies to constitute, to appoint, but here 
it is insisted that it signifies to manifest. The word strictly 
means to bound, to define, and may naturally mean to set forth, 
to characterize. This sense is said (Dr. Charles Hodge, " Com. 
Rom.") to be adopted by the great majority of commentators, 
including some of the ancient Greek Fathers. Besides, even if 
our opponents' interpretation of this passage were allowed, the 
indubitable evidence afforded to our position by other passages 
would remain. The two reasons for calling Christ Son are not 
inconsistent. 

It is very evident that Christ called himself Son of God, and 
was so recognized by his disciples before his resurrection, and, 
therefore, he might have been revealed or manifested to be the 
Son of God, but could not have been constituted such by that 
event. 

58. Shoio that Acts xiii. 32, 33, does not prove that Jesus was 
made Son of God. 

It is argued from this passage that Jesus was constituted 
Son of God by his resurrection, as the first stage of his official 
exaltation. This can not be — 1st. Because he was sent into the 



182 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

world as Son of God. 2d. Because the word dvadrrjdas, having 
raised up, refers to the raising up Christ at his birth, and not 
to his resurrection (there is nothing in the Greek corresponding 
to the word again in the English). When this word is used to 
designate the resurrection it is usually qualified by the phrase 

from the dead, as in verse 34. "On ds dve6rrj6ey dvrov in vExpcov. 

Verse 32 declares the fulfillment of the promise referred to in 
verse 23. — See Alexander's " Com. on Acts." 

59. State the orthodox answer to the question why Christ is 
called "Son of God" 

The orthodox doctrine is that Christ is called " Son of God " 
in Scripture to indicate his eternal and necessary personal rela- 
tion as the Second Person of the Godhead to the First Person, 
who is called Father to indicate the reciprocal relation. 

60. Hoiv is the doctrine stated in the Nicene and Athanasian 
Creeds and in the Westminster Confession? 

Nicene Creed. — " Son of Gocl, begotten of his Father before 
all worlds ; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, 
begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father." 

Athanasian Creed. — "The Son is from the Father alone, nei- 
ther made, nor created, but begotten." 

Westminster Confession. — "The Father is of none, neither 
begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the 
Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father 
and the Son." 

61. What is the common statement and explanation of this doc- 
trine given by orthodox ivriters ? 

The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to 
be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity 
of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not 
the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole 
indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, aliena- 
tion, or change, so that the Son is the express image of his 
Father's person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, 
but in the Father, and the Father in the Son. — See particularly 
Heb. i. 3; John x. 38; xiv. 11; xvii. 21. The principal Scrip- 
tural support of the doctrine of derivation is John v. 26. — Tur- 
retin, Tom. I., L. 3, Q. 29. 

Those theologians who insist upon this definition believe 
that the idea of derivation is necessarily implied in generation; 
that it is indicated by both the reciprocal terms Father and 
Son, and by the entire representation given in the Scriptures 
as to the relation and order of the persons of the Godhead, the 



THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 183 

Father always standing for the Godhead considered absolutely; 
and they hold that this theory is necessary to the vindication 
of the essential unity of the three persons. The older theo- 
logians, therefore, styled the Father nrjyri Bsoryros, fountain of 
Godhead, and chvia mov, principle or cause of the Son, while the 
Son and Holy Ghost were both called dtnaroi (those depend- 
ing upon another as their principle or cause). 

They at the same time guarded the essential equality of the 
Son and the Holy Ghost with the Father, by saying, 1st, that 
the whole divine essence, without division or change, and, 
therefore, all the divine attributes, were communicated to 
them ; and, 2d, that this communication was made by an 
eternal and necessary act of the Father, and not of his mere 
will. In all the early Creeds this identity as to essence, and 
subordination as to mode of subsistence and operation, is ex- 
pressed by the phrases as above. 9s6s kx Beov, tpm% in ^oJro?; 
en rov rtarpoS ; BsoS d\?]Biv6s eh Beov dXrjBivov ; y£vvr/B£iS 6v 7toirjB£i<s ; 
6jnoov6iov tod Ttarpi. 

62. State hoio they endeavored to guard their doctrine from aU 
anth ropo mo rphic g ross ness. 

In order to guard their doctrine of derivation and eternal 
generation from all gross anthropomorphic conceptions they 
carefully maintained that it w r as — (1) dxpovaos, timeless, eternal; 
(2) dtiGojuaraos, not bodily, spiritual; (3) ao'paro?, invisible; (4) dxoo- 
pi6raoi, not a local transference, a communicaiion not icithout but 
within the Godhead; (5) ditaB^, icithout passion or change; (6) 
tzocvteXgos dKardX^7troi, altogether incomprehensible. 

63. What is essential to the Scriptural doctrine of the eternal 
generation of tlie Son ? 

In the above rendered account of the orthodox doctrine 
there is nothing inconsistent with revealed truth. The idea 
of derivation, as involved in the generation of the Son by the 
Father, appears rather to be a rational explanation of revealed 
facts than a revealed fact itself. On such a subject, therefore, 
it should be held in suspense. All that is explicitly revealed 
is, 1st, the term Son is applied to Christ as the second person 
of the Godhead. 2d. This term, and the equivalent one, "only 
begotten," reveal some relation, within the Godhead, of the 
person of the Son to the person of the Father; the designa- 
tion Father being reciprocal to that of Son. 3d. That this re- 
lation is such that Father and Son are the same in substance, 
and are personally equal; that the Father is first and the Son 
second in the order of revelation and operation, that the Son 



184 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

is the express image of the Father's person, not the Father of 
the Son's, and that the Son is not from the Father, but in the 
Father, and the Father in the Son. 

64. How may it be shown that the common doctrine is not self- 
contradictory ? 

There is evidently no inconsistency in the simple Scriptural 
statement given in the answer to the last question. Heterodox 
controversialists, however, have claimed that there is a mani- 
fest inconsistency in the orthodox theory that the Father com- 
municates to the Son the whole divine essence without alien- 
ating it from himself, dividing or otherwise changing it. This 
subject does not fall within the legitimate sphere of human 
logic, yet it is evident that this theory involves no contradic- 
tion and no mystery greater than that involved in the whole 
essence of God being at the same time present, without divi- 
sion or diffusion, to every point of space. 

65. By what terms, besides that of "Son" is the personal char- 
acter of the Second Person, and his relation to the First Person 
designated ? 

Aoyoi TtpoS tov Qsoruoa BsoS f]v 6 \6yo<*. The Word with God, 

and who is God — John i. 1. Eixaov rod Qsov tov dopccTov. The 
Image of the invisible God — 2 Cor iv. 4; Col. i. 15. XapauTjjp ttjs 
v7to6T(x6EGDS avTov. " The image or impression of his being or sub- 
stance" — Heb. i. 3. Ev juopq>y Oeov. The form of God — Phil. ii. 6; 
, Aitoivya6^a tt/s dotys cIvtov. " The shining forth of his glory" — 
Heb. i. 3. 

66. What is the distinction ivhich some of the fathers made be- 
tween the eternal, the ante-mundane, and the mundane generation of 
the Son? 

1st. By his eternal generation they intended to mark his 
essential relation to the Father as his consubstantial and eter- 
nal Son. 

2d. By his ante-mundane generation they meant to signify 
the commencement of the outgoings of his energy, and the 
manifestation of his person beyond the bosom of the Godhead, 
in the sphere of external creation, etc. — Col. i. 15. 

3d. By his mundane generation they intended his supernat- 
ural birth in the flesh. — Luke i. 35. 

67. What is the distinction which some of the fathers made be- 
tiveen the Xoyos evSkxQetos (ratio insita, reason), and the Xoyoi 
Ttpocpopiubs {ratio prolata, reason brought forth, or expressed) ? 



THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 185 

The orthodox fathers used the phrase logos endiathetos to 
designate the Word, whom they held to be a distinct person, 
dwelling from eternity with the Father. The ground of their 
use of this phrase was a fanciful analogy which they conceived 
existed between the relation which the eternal logos (word, or 
reason) (John i. 1) sustains to the Father, and the relation 
which the reason of a man sustains to his own rational soul. 
Thus the logos endiathetos was God's own reflective idea hypos- 
tatized. They were led to this vain attempt to philosophize 
upon an incomprehensible subject by the influence exerted 
upon them by the Platonic philosophers of that age, who 
taught a sort of metaphysical trinity, e. g., that in the one 
God there were three constituent principles, to dyabov, good- 
ness, rovs, intelligence, ipvxij, vitality. Their immediate object 
was to illustrate the essential unity of the Trinity, and to 
prove, against the Avians, the essential divinity of the Son, 
from the application to him by John of the epithet XoyoS Qsov. 

By the phrase logos prophoricos they intended to designate 
him as the reason of God revealed, when he proceeded from the 
Father in the work of creation. — See Hill's " Lectures." 

The Arians, taking advantage of the essential inadequacy 
of this language, confused the controversy by acknowledging 
that the phrase logos prophoricos did truly apply to Christ, since 
he came forth from God as the first and highest creation and 
image of his mind. But declaring, with some color of truth, 
that the phrase logos endiathetos, when applied to Christ, taught 
pure Sabellianism, since it marked no personal distinction, but 
signified nothing else than the mind of the Father itself. 

68. If God is " ens a se ipso," self-existent, now can the Son be 
really God, if he be "Qsos eh Beov," God from tlie Father? 

The objection presented in this question does not press 
against the Scriptural statement of the eternal generation of 
the Son presented above (Question 63), but solely against the 
theory of derivation as involved in the ordinary definition (see 
Question 61). Those who insist upon the validity of that view 
rebut the objection by saying that self-existence is an attribute 
of essence, not of person. The Father, as a person, generates 
the person, not the essence of the Son, whose person is consti- 
tuted of the very same self-existent essence with the Father's. 
Thus the Son is avroOsos, i. e., Deus a se ipso as to his essence, 
but Qeo? eh Beov, God from God, as to his person. 

69. What argument for the eternal sonship of Christ may be 
derived from the designation of the per sorts of the Trinity as Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost? 



186 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

In the apostolical benediction and the formula of baptism 
the one God is designated as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
The term Son can not here be applied to Christ as an official 
title, or as a miraculously generated man, because, 1st, he is so 
called as one of the three divine persons constituting the God- 
head. 2d. The term Son is reciprocal to the term Father, and 
therefore designates the relation of the second person to the 
first. Whatever this relation may involve besides, it evidently 
must be eternal and necessary, and includes paternity on the 
part of the first person, and filiation on the part of the second. 

70. What argument in support of this doctrine may be derived 
from tlve use of the word son in Matt. xi. 27 and Luke x. 22? 

In both of these passages the term Son is used to designate 
the divine nature of the second person of the Trinity in his re- 
lation to the first. The Son, as Son, knows and is known by 
the Father as Father. He is infinite in knowledge and there- 
fore knows the Father. He is infinite in being and therefore 
can be known by none other than the Father. 

71. State the argument from John i. 1-14. 

Here the eternal Word, who was God, discovered himself as 
such to his disciples by the manifestation of his native divine 
glory, " the glory as of the only begotten of the Father." He 
was " only begotten Son," therefore as God, and not either as 
Mediator or as man. 

72. State the argument from the application in Scripture of the 
terms vovoyevrjs, {only begotten) and i'8ios, {own) to the Sonship 
of Christ 

Although many of God's creatures are called his sons, the 
phrase, Son of God, in the singular, and when limited by the 
terms "own" and "only begotten," is applied only to Christ. 

Christ is called "only begotten Son of God." — John i. 14, 18; 
iii. 16, 18; 1 John iv. 9. 

In John v. 18, Christ calls God his own Father (see Greek). 
He is called the own Son of the Father. — Rom. viii. 32. 

The use of these qualifying terms proves that Christ is 
called Son of God in a sense different from that in which any 
other is so called. Therefore it designates him as God and not 
as man, nor as the bearer of an office. 

73. What is the argument derived from John v. 22, and con- 
text, and from John x. 33-37 ? 

In the first passage the terms Father and Son are used to 



THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 187 

designate two divine and equal persons. As Son, Christ does 
whatsoever the Father doeth, and is to receive eqnal honor. 

In the second passage, Jesus assumes the title, " Son of 
God," as equivalent to asserting that he was God. The Jews 
charging it upon him as blasphemy. 

74. What is the evidence furnished by such passages as speak 
of the manifestation, giving or sending of the Son ? 

See 1 John hi. 8; Eom. viii. 3; John iii. 16, etc. 
To say that the Son was sent or manifested implies that he 
was Son before he was sent or manifested as such. 

75. State the argument from Rom. i. 3, 4. 

The argument from this passage is twofold: 1st. The Son 
of God is declared to have been made flesh, and therefore must 
have pre-existed as Son. 2d. By the resurrection he was pow- 
erfully manifested to be the Son of God as to his divine nature. 
The phrases, according to the flesh, and according to the spirit of 
holiness, are evidently antithetical, designating severally the 
Lord's human and divine natures. 

76. State the argument from Rom. viii. 3. 

Here God's own Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. 
Obviously he must have pre-existed as such before he assumed 
the likeness of sinful flesh, the assumption of which certainly 
could not have constituted him the own Son of God. 

77. State the argument from Col. i. 15-21. 

In this passage the apostle sets forth at length the nature 
and glory of him whom, in the thirteenth verse, he had called 
God's dear Son. Thus he proves that Christ as Son is the im- 
age of the invisible God, and that by him all things consist, etc. 

78. State the argument from Heb. i. 5-8. 

Paul is here setting forth the superiority of Christ as a 
divine person. As divine he calls him "the Son," "the first 
begotten." This Son is brought into the world, and therefore 
must have pre-existed as such. As Son he is declared to be 
God, and to reign upon an everlasting throne. 

79. How can those passages tohich speak of the Son as inferior 
and subject to the Father be reconciled with this doctrine ? 

It is objected that such passages prove that Jesus, as Son, 
is inferior and subject to the Father. 

We answer that in John iii. 13 the "Son of Man" is said to 
have come down from heaven, and to be in heaven. But surely 



188 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

Jesus, as Son of Man, was not omnipresent. In Acts xx. 28 
God is said to purchase his church with his own blood; but 
surely Christ, as God, did not shed his blood. The explanation 
of this is that it is the common usage of Scripture to designate 
the single person of the God-man by a title belonging to him 
as the possessor of one nature, while the condition, attribute, 
relation, or action predicated of him is true only of the other 
nature. Thus in the passages in question he is called M Son of 
God," because he is the eternal Word, while at the same time 
he is said to be inferior to the Father, because he is also man 
and mediator. 

(II.) The relation which the third Person sustains to the 

FIRST AND SECOND, OR THE ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST. 

80. What is the etymology of the word Sjtirit, and the usage of 
its Hebrew and Greek equivalents ? 

The English word spirit is from the Latin spiritus, breath, 
wind, air, life, soul, which in turn is from the verb spiro, to 
breathe. The equivalent Hebrew word, tw\, has a perfectly 
analogous usage. 1st. Its primary sense is wind, air in mo- 
tion, Gen. viii. 1; then, 2d, breath, the breath of life, Gen. vi. 
17; Job xvii. 1; 3d, animal soul, vital principle in men and 
animals, 1 Sam. xxx. 12; 4th, rational soul of man, Gen. xli. 8, 
and hence, metaphorically, disposition, temperament, Num. v. 
14; 5th, Spirit of Jehovah, Gen. i. 2; Ps.Ti. 11. — Gesenius' "Lex." 

The equivalent Greek word, nvsvjua, has also the same usage. 
It is derived from itviw, to breathe, to blow. It signifies, 1st, 
breath, Rev. xi. 11; 2d, air in motion, John iii. 8; 3d, the vital 
principle, Matt, xxvii. 50; 4th, the rational soul, spoken (1) of 
the disembodied spirits of men, Heb. xii. 23; (2) of devils, 
Matt. x. 1; (3) of angels, Heb. i. 14; (4) the Spirit of God, 
spoken of God, a, absolutely as an attribute of his essence, John 
iv. 24; and b as the personal designation of the third person of 
the Trinity, who is called Spirit of God, or of the Lord, and the 
Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of Christ, or of Jesus, or of the Son 
of God, Acts xvi. 6, 7; Rom. viii. 9; 2 Cor. iii. 17; Gal. iv. 6; 
Phil. i. 19; IPet. i. 11. 

81. Why is the third person of the Trinity called the Spirit ? 

As the one indivisible divine essence which is common to 
each of the divine persons alike is spiritual, this term, as the 
personal designation of the third person, can not be intended to 
signify the fact that he is a spirit as to his essence, but rather 
to mark what is peculiar to his person, i. e., his personal relation 
to the Father and the Son, and the peculiar mode of his opera- 






THE ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 189 

tion ad extra. As the reciprocal epithets Father and Son are 
used to indicate, so far forth, the mutual relations of the first 
and second persons, so the epithets, Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit 
of the Son, Spirit which proceedeth from the Father, are applied 
to the third person to indicate, so far forth, the relation of the 
third person to the first and second. 

82. Why is he called Holy Spirit ? 

As holiness is an attribute of the divine essence, and the 
glory equally of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, it can not be 
applied in any pre-eminent sense as a personal characteristic 
to the third person. It indicates, therefore, the peculiar nature 
of his operation. He is called the Holy Spirit because he is the 
author of holiness throughout the universe. As the Son is also 
styled Logos, or God, the Revealer, so the Holy Spirit is God, 
the Operator, the end and glory of whose work in the moral 
world is holiness, as in the physical world beauty. 

83. Why is he called tlie Spirit of God ? 

This phrase expresses his divinity, his relation to the God- 
head as himself God, 1 Cor. ii. 11 ; his intimate personal relation 
to the Father as his consubstantial spirit proceeding from him, 
John xv. 26; and the fact that he is the divine Spirit, which 
proceeding from God operates upon the creature, Ps. civ. 30; 
1 Pet. iv. 14. 

84. Why is the third person called the Spirit of Christ ? 

See Gal. iv. 6; Rom. viii. 9; Phil. i. 19; 1 Peter i. 11. As 
the form of expression is identical in the several phrases, Spirit 
of God, and Spirit of the Son, and as the Scriptures, with one 
exception, John xv. 26, uniformly predicate every thing of the 
relation of the Spirit to the Son, that they predicate of the rela- 
tion of the Spirit to the Father, it appears evident that he is 
called Spirit of the Son for the same reason that he is called 
Spirit of God. 

This phrase also additionally sets forth the official relation 
which the Spirit in his agency in the work of redemption 
sustains to the God-man, in taking of his, and showing them 
to us, John xvi. 14. 

85. What is meant by the theological phrase, Procession of the 
Holy Ghost? 

Theologians intend by this phrase to designate the rela- 
tion which the third person sustains to the first and second, 
wherein by an eternal and necessary, i. e., not voluntary, act 



190 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

of the Father and the Son, their whole identical divine essence, 
without alienation, division, or change, is communicated to the 
Holy Ghost. 

86. What distinction do theologians make between " procession " 
and "generation?" 

As this entire subject infinitely transcends the measure of 
our faculties, we can do nothing further than classify and con- 
trast those predicates which inspiration has applied to the rela- 
tion of Father and Son with those which it has applied to the 
relation of the Spirit to the Father and Son. 

Thus Turretin, Vol. I., L. 3., Q. 31. They differ, "1st, As to 
source, the Son emanates from the Father only, but the Spirit 
from the Father and the Son at the same time. 2d. As to mode. 
The Son emanates in the way of generation, which affects not 
only personality, but similitude, on account of which the Son is 
called the image of the Father, and in consequence of which he 
receives the property of communicating the same essence to 
another person ; but the Spirit, by the way of spiration, which 
effects only personality, and in consequence of which the person 
who proceeds does not receive the property of communicating 
the same essence to another person. 3d. As to order. The Son 
is second person, and the Spirit third, and though both are eter- 
nal, without beginning or succession, yet, in our mode of con- 
ception, generation precedes procession." The technical terms 
used to express these two mysteries are revv7]6ii f gemratio, 
generation. EMt6pEv6ii, ehtieutPis, processio, missio, procession. 

"The schoolmen vainly attempted to found a distinction 
between generation and spiration upon the different operations 
of the divine intellect and the divine will. They say the Son 
was generated per modum intellectus, whence he is called the 
Word of God. The Spirit proceeds per modum voluntatis, whence 
he is called Love." 

87. What is the Scripture ground for this doctrine? 

What we remarked above (Question 53), concerning the 
common theological definition of the eternal generation of the 
Son, holds true also with reference to the common definition 
of the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost, viz., that in order 
to make the method of the divine unity in Trinity more appar- 
ent, theologians have pressed the idea of derivation and sub- 
ordination in the order of personal subsistence too far. This 
ground is at once sacred and mysterious. The points given 
by Scripture are not to be pressed nor speculated upon, but 
received and confessed nakedly. 

The data of inspiration are simply as follows: 1st. Father, 



THE ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST. 191 

Son, and Holy Ghost, three divine persons, possess from eter- 
nity the one whole identical, indivisible, unchangeable essence. 
2d. The Father from his characteristic personal name, and the 
order in which his name uniformly occurs in Scripture, and 
from the fact that the Son is called his and his only begotten, 
and that the Spirit is called his, the one proceeding from him, 
and from the order of his manifestation and operation ad extra, 
is evidently in some icay first in order of personal subsistence 
relatively to the Son and Spirit. 3d. For the same reason (see 
below, Question 89) the Son, in the order of personal subsist- 
ence, is before the Spirit. 4th. What the real nature of these 
distinctions in the order of personal subsistence may be is made 
known to us only so far — (1.) That it involves no distinction 
as to time, since all are alike eternal. (2.) It does not depend 
upon any voluntary action, for that would make the second 
person dependent upon the first, and the third upon the first 
and second, while they are all "equal in power and glory." 
(3.) It is such a relation that the second person is eternally 
only begotten Son of the first, and the third is eternally the 
Spirit of the first and second. 

88. What was the difference between the Greek and Latin churches 
on this doctrine ? 

The famous Council of Nice, a. d. 325, while so accurately 
defining the doctrine of the Godhead of the Son, left the testi- 
mony concerning the Holy Ghost in the vague form in which 
it stood in the ancient creed, " in the Holy Ghost." But the 
heresy of Macedonius, who denied the divinity of the Holy 
Ghost, having sprung up in the meantime, the Council of Con- 
stantinople, a. d. 381, completed the testimony of the Nicene 
Creed thus, "I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Author 
of Life, who proceedeth from the Father." 

There subsequently arose a controversy upon the question, 
whether the Scriptures do or do not represent the Holy Spirit 
as sustaining precisely the same relation to the Son that he 
does to the Father. This the Latins generally affirmed, and at 
the third ecclesiastical assembly at Toledo, a. d. 589, they added 
the word filioque (and the Son) to the Latin version of the 
Constantinopolitan Creed, making the clause read " Credimus 
in Spiritum Sanctum qui a Patre Filioque procedit." The Greek 
Church violently opposed this, and to this day reject it. For 
a short time they were satisfied with the compromise, "The 
Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son," which was 
finally rejected by both parties. The Constantinopolitan Creed, 
as amended at the Council of Toledo, is the one now adopted 



192 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

by the Catholic Church, and recognized by all Protestants, 
currently bearing the title of "Nicene Creed." 

89. How may it be proved that, as far as revealed, the Spirit 
sustains precisely the same relation to the Son which lie does to the 
Father? 

The epithet " Spirit " is the characteristic personal designa- 
tion of the third Person. Whatever is revealed of his eternal 
and necessary personal relation to either the Father or the Son 
is indicated by this word. Yet he is called the Spirit of the 
Son, as well as the Spirit of the Father. He possesses the same 
identical essence of the Son as of the Father. The Son sends 
and operates through the Spirit as the Father does. Wherever 
their Spirit is there both Father and Son are revealed, and 
there they exercise their power. — John xiv. 16, 26; xv. 26; 
xvi. 7. With the single exception of the phrase, " which pro- 
ceedeth from the Father" (John xv. 26), the Scriptures apply 
precisely the same predicates to the relation of the Spirit to 
the Son that they do to his relation to the Father. 

90. What office does the Spirit discharge in the economy of 
redemption ? 

In the economy of redemption, as universally in all the act- 
ings of the Godhead upon the creature, God the Son is the 
revealed God, God as known, and God the Spirit is that divine 
person who exerts his energy immediately upon and in the 
creature. He is styled in this relation in the creed to Kvpior, 
hoci ro ^oooTtoiov. The Lord, and the Giver of life. For a more 
detailed answer see Chapter XXIV., on "The Mediatorial Office 
of Christ," Question 9. 

(III.) The Personal Properties peculiar to each of the Three 
Persons of the Godhead, and their Order of Operation ad extra. 

91. What is the theological meaning of the word property as 
applied to the doctrine of the Trinity ? and what are severally the 
personal properties of each Person of the Godhead. 

The attributes of God are the perfections of the divine es- 
sence, and therefore common to each of the three persons, who 
are "the same in substance," and therefore "equal in power 
and glory." These have been discussed under Chapter VIII. 
The properties of each divine person, on the other hand, are 
those peculiar modes of personal subsistence whereby each 
divine person is constituted as such, and that peculiar order 
of operation whereby each person is distinguished from the 
others. The peculiar distinguishing properties which belong 



THE CHARATER HYPOSTATICUS. 193 

to each Person severally is called technically his charater hy- 
postaticus — personal character. 

As far as these are revealed to us the personal properties of 
the Father are as follows: He is begotten by none, and pro- 
ceeds from none; he is the Father of the Son, having begotten 
him from eternity; the Spirit proceeds from him and is his 
Spirit. Thus he is the first in order and in operation, sending 
and operating through the Son and Spirit. 

The personal properties of the Son are as follows : He is the 
Son, from eternity the only begotten of the Father. The Spirit 
is the Spirit of the Son even as he is the Spirit of the Father, 
he is sent by the Father, whom he reveals: he, even as the 
Father, sends and operates through the Spirit. 

The personal properties of the Spirit are as follows: He is 
the Spirit of the Father and the Son, from eternity proceeding 
from them: he is sent by the Father and the Son, they operat- 
ing through him ; he operates immediately upon the creature. 

92. What kind of subordination did the early ivriters attribute 
to the second and third persons in relation to the first ? 

They held, as above shown, that the eternal generation of 
the Son by the Father, and the eternal procession of the Holy 
Ghost from the Father and the Son involved in both instances 
the derivation of essence. They illustrated their idea of this 
eternal and necessary act of communication by the example of 
a luminous body, which necessarily radiates light the whole 
period of its existence. Thus the Son is defined in the words 
of the Nicene Creed, "God of God, Light of Light." Thus as 
the radiance of the sun is coeval with its existence, and of the 
same essence as its source, by this illustration they designed 
to signify their belief in the identity and consequent equality 
of the divine persons as to essence, and the relative subordina- 
tion of the second to the first, and of the third to the first 
and second, as to personal subsistence and consequent order 
of operation. 

93. What is expressed by the use of the terms first, second, and 
third in reference to tlie persons of the Trinity. 

These terms are severally applied to the persons of the 
Trinity because — 1st. The Scriptures uniformly state their names 
in this order. 2d. The personal designations, Father and Son, 
and Spirit of the Father and of the Son, indicate this order of 
personal subsistence. 3d. Their respective modes of operation 
ad extra is always in this order. The Father sends and oper- 
ates through the Son, and the Father and Son send and operate 
13 



194 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

through the Spirit. The Scriptures never either directly or 
indirectly indicate the reverse order. 

As to the outward bearing of the Godhead upon the crea- 
ture it would appear, that the Father is revealed only as he is 
seen in the Son, who is the eternal Logos, or divine Word, the 
express image of the Father's person. "No man hath seen 
God at any time, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom 
of the Father, he hath declared him." — John i. 18. And the 
Father and Son act immediately upon the creature only through 
the Spirit. 

"The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead invisible, 
without form, whom no man hath seen or can see." 

"The Son is all the fulness of the Godhead manifested." 

"The Spirit is all the fulness of the Godhead acting im- 
mediately upon the creature, and thus making manifest the 
Father in the image of the Son, and through the power of the 
Spirit." — "Higher Christian Life," by Rev. W. E. Boardman, 
p. 105. 

94. How can the assumption of personal distinctions in the God- 
Ivead he reconciled with the divine unity ? 

Although this tripersonal constitution of the Godhead is 
altogether beyond the capacity of reason, and is ascertained to 
us only through a supernatural revelation, there is evidently 
no contradiction in the twofold proposition, that God is one, 
and yet Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are that one God. They 
are one in one sense, and threefold in an entirely different 
sense. The eternal, self-existent, divine essence, constituting 
all those divine perfections called attributes of God is, in the 
same sense and degree, common to all the persons. In this 
sense they are one. But this divine essence exists eternally 
as Father, and as Son, and as Holy Ghost, distinguished by 
personal properties. In this sense they are three. We believe 
this, not because we understand it, but because thus God has 
revealed himself. 

95. How can the separate incarnation of the Son be reconciled 
ivith the divine unity ? 

The Son is identical with the Father and Spirit as to essence, 
but distinct from them as to personal subsistence. In the incar- 
nation, the divine essence of the Son was not made man, but 
as a divine person he entered into a personal relation with the 
human nature of the man Christ Jesus. This did not consti- 
tute a new person, but merely introduced a new element into 
his eternal person. It was the personal union of the Son with 



HERETICAL OPINIONS. 195 

a human soul and body, and not any change either in the 
divine essence, or in the personal relation of the Son to the 
Father or the Spirit. 

Heretical Opinions. 

96. What are the three great points which together embrace the 
mystery of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture, and the apparent 
irreconcilability of which, with each other, occasions the great objec- 
tion to this doctrine in the minds of heretics of all classes ? 

The three great points are as follows. 1st. There is abso- 
lutely but one God, but one self-existent, eternal, immutable, 
spiritual substance. 2d. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each 
equally this one God — are each in common constituted of the 
whole of this inalienable indivisible essence, having the same 
identical numerical essence, and the same identical attributes. 
3d. Nevertheless Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct 
persons, distinguished each by his several personal properties. 
The difficulty is, that in the case of the only created spirits of 
which we know any thing, every person is a separate spiritual 
essence, and distinct personality is definitely discriminated by 
numerical difference of attribute. We can not conceive how 
three persons can have among them but one intelligence and 
one will. 

Hence all heresies on this subject have sprung from one 
or other of three distinct tendencies, or efforts to disembarrass 
this doctrine of its apparent inconsistencies by the denial or 
abatement of one or other of its three .constituent elements. 
Thus — 1st. One tendency is to cut the knot of the difficulty by 
denying the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the person- 
ality of the Holy Ghost. This makes God the Father the only 
divine Person and the possessor of the only divine substance. 
2d. A second heretical tendency is to deny the divine unity 
and to maintain the co-existence of three distinct Gods, distinct 
in essence as well as in person. 3d. The third heretical ten- 
dency is to press the divine unity so far as to make Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost one and the same identical Person as well 
as the same divine essence, admitting them only to be differ- 
ent names, or different aspects or functions of the one divine 
Person. 

97. What different opinions have been held by those who deny 
the divinity of Christ, and either the divinity or personality of the 
Holy Ghost? 

1st. That of the Humanitarians, or those who maintain that 
Christ is a mere Man. These in the early Church were known 



196 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

by the name of Ebionites, and Alogi — the denier s of the Logos, 
while in the Modern Church they are known as Socinians. For 
a statement of the History and Doctrine of the Socinians, see 
above, Chapter VI., Ques. 11 and 13. Those who have held 
that Christ is a mere man have differed among themselves as 
to whether he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the 
Virgin or not, and as to the question of his supernatural en- 
dowments as a prophet, and as to the degree of honor and 
obedience owed from us to him. Some admit that he possessed 
a supernatural divine commission and qualification beyond that 
vouchsafed to any other prophet. Others deny the supernat- 
ural element altogether, and regard him as a mere man natu- 
rally endowed with a very superior moral and religious genius. 

All of this class, of course, hold that God is one Person as 
Avell as one essence, and for the most part they regard the term 
Holy Ghost as only a designation of the divine energy exer- 
cised in human affairs. Some of the German Rationalists, who 
for the most part agree with the Socinians, hold that the phrase 
Holy Ghost properly designates the one divine person working 
in the world of nature — Creation and Providence. Others hold 
it designates God in the church. 

2d. The Gnostics, as a general class, held that the supreme 
God is one alike in essence and in Person, and that from him 
emanates different orders of spiritual beings, none of them in 
any proper sense God, yet all divine, since they all proceeded 
by way of emanation from him. These are called iEons. The 
Old Testament Jehovah, or Creator, was one of these iEons, of 
which class Christ was one of the greatest. The entire sum 
of these iEons constituted, in the view of the Gnostics, the 
-it av to Tt\rjpao).ta r?/s esorr/ros, the entire sum of all the actual 
or possible self-revelations, or self-communications, of the un- 
approachable Godhead, which the Apostle Paul declared to be 
alone and fully realized in Christ. — Col. ii. 9. 

3d. The earlier Nominal Trinitarians. " In their construc- 
tion of the doctrine of the trinity, the Son is not a subsistence 
( K v7to6za6i<i) in the Essence, but only an effluence (duva^is) or en- 
ergy issuing from it, hence they could not logically assert the 
union of the divine nature, or the very substance of the God- 
head with the humanity of Jesus. A merely effluent energy 
proceeding from the deity, and entering the humanity of Christ, 
would be nothing more than an indwelling inspiration kindred 
to that of the prophets." — Shedd's "Hist. Christ. Doc," Book 
III, Ch. 5, § 1. 

4th. The Arians, so called from Arius, a presbyter of Alex- 
andria during the first part of the fourth century, the great 
opponent of Athanasius. He maintained that the Godhead 



HERETICAL OPINIONS. 197 

consists of one eternal person, who in the beginning, before 
all worlds, created in his own image a super-angelic being 
(srepoovdiov — of a different essence), his only begotten Son, 
the beginning of the creation of God, by whom also he made 
the worlds. The first and greatest creature thus created, 
through the Son of God, was the Holy Ghost. In the full- 
ness of time this Son became incarnate in the person of Jesus 
of Nazareth. 

4th. The doctrine of the Semiarians. This party was so 
called as occupying middle ground between the Arians and 
the Orthodox. They held that the absolute, self-existent God 
was one person, but that the Son was a divine person of a 
glorious essence, like to (Sjuoiovdiov) but not identical with 
(oiio6v6iov) that of the Father, and from eternity begotten by 
the Father by a free exercise of will and power, and therefore 
subordinate to and dependent upon him. This was the view 
first disseminated by Origen, and advocated with great power 
at the council of Nice by Eusebius bishop of Cassarea, and 
Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia. 

It appears that some of the Semiarians agreed with the 
Arians in regarding the Holy Spirit as the first and most glo- 
rious creature of the Son, but that the majority regarded the 
words "Holy Spirit," as significant of a divine energy, or as a 
synonym of the word God. — See Neander's "Ch. Hist," Tor- 
rey's translation, Vol. II., pp. 419, 420. 

98. What was the position of those tvho sought to relieve' the dif- 
ficulty of the doctrine by denying the divine unity ? 

These were the Tritheists, who admitted that there were 
three ovdiai numerically considered, as well as three V7t6dradsis 
in the Godhead. They held the idea of 6v6ia (essence) by 
which the essence was expressed, should be understood as the 
mere concept of a genus, and the i'7t66ta6is as an individual 
(a species) falling under this generic conception. "That is 
there are three Gods, generically one, individually distinct." 
John Ascusnages of Constantinople, and John Philoponus of 
Alexandria (of the latter part of sixth century) were leaders 
of the Tritheists. — Smith's edition of Hagenbach's "Hist, of 
Doc," Vol. L, pp. 267, 268. 

99. What was tJie position of those who pressed the divine unity 
in opposition to the Tritheists so far as to make Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost one Person as well as one essence ? 

The Monarchians, so called because they rejected the Triad 
and maintained the Monad, or absolute unity as to person 
as well as to essence in the Godhead, were of several kinds; 



198 THE HOLY TRINITY. 

some, as the Alogi, were very much the same as the modern 
Unitarian, which term is intended to express the same idea. 
Others, as Praxeas of Asia Minor, circum. a. d. 200; Noetus of 
Smyrna, circum. a. d. 230, and Beryl of Bostra in Arabia, cir- 
cum. a. d. 250, held that this one single divine Person became 
incarnate in the man Christ, and hence they were called Patri- 
passians. "Sabellius, a presbyter of Ptolemais, who lived about 
the middle of the third century, adopted the notions of the ear- 
lier Monarchians, and maintained in opposition to the doctrine 
propounded by Origen and his followers, that the appellations 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were only so many different man- 
ifestations and names of one and the same divine being. He 
thus converted the objective and real distinction of persons 
(a Trinity of essence) into a merely subjective and modalistic 
view (the Trinity of manifestation)." — Smith's edition of Ha- 
genbach's "Hist, of Doctrine," Vol. I., p. 246. "They affirmed 
that there is only one divine Person. This one only Person 
conceived of in his abstract simplicity and eternity was de- 
nominated God the Father; but in his incarnation, he was 
denominated God the Son. Sometimes a somewhat different 
mode of apprehension and statement was employed. God in 
his concealed, unrevealed nature and being was denominated 
God the Father, and when he comes forth from the depths of 
his essence, creating a universe, and revealing and communi- 
cating himself to it, he therein takes on a different relation, 
and assumes another denomination; namely, God the Son, or 
the Logos." — Shedd's "History of Christian Doctrine," Book 
III., Ch. 2, § 2. 

100. By wliat considerations may it be shown that the doctrine 
of the Trinity is a fundamental element of the Gospel? 

It is not claimed that the refinements of theological spec- 
ulations upon this subject are essential points of faith, but 
simply that it is essential to salvation to believe in the three 
persons in one Godhead, as they are revealed to us in the 
Scriptures. 1st. The only true God is that God who has re- 
vealed himself to us in the Scriptures, and the very end of the 
gospel is to bring us to the knowledge of that God precisely 
in the aspect in which he has revealed himself. Every other 
conception of God presents a false god to the mind and con- 
science. There can be no mutual toleration without treason. 
Socinians, Arians, and Trinitarians worship different Gods. 

2d. The Scriptures explicitly assert that the knowledge of 
this true God and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent is eternal 
life, and that it is necessary to honor the Son even as we honor 
the Father.— John v. 23; xiv. 1; xvii. 3; 1 John ii. 23; v. 20. 



THE DOCTRINE ESSENTIAL. 199 

3d. In the initiatory rite of the Christian church we are 
baptized into the name of every several person of the Trinity. 
Matt, xxviii. 19. 

4th. The whole plan of redemption in all its parts is founded 
upon it. Justification, sanctification, adoption, and all else that 
makes the gospel the wisdom and power of God unto salvation, 
can be understood only in the light of this fundamental truth. 

5th. As an historical fact it is beyond dispute that in what- 
ever church the doctrine of the Trinity has been abandoned or 
obscured, every other characteristic doctrine of the gospel has 
gone with it. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 

1. What are the decrees of God ? 

See " Con. of Faith," chap. iii. " Larger Cat," Q. 12, and 
" Shorter Cat," Q. 7. 

The decree of God is his eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise, 
and sovereign purpose, comprehending at once all things that 
ever were or will be in their causes, conditions, successions, 
and relations, and determining their certain futurition. The 
several contents of this one eternal purpose are, because of the 
limitation of our faculties, necessarily conceived of by us in 
partial aspects, and in logical relations, and are therefore styled 
Decrees. 

2. How are the acts of God classified, and to which class do 
theologians refer the decrees ? 

All conceivable divine actions may be classified as follows: 

1st. Those actions which are immanent and intrinsic, belong- 
ing essentially to the perfection of the divine nature, and which 
bear no reference whatever to any existence without the God- 
head. These are the acts of eternal and necessary generation, 
whereby the Son springs from the Father, and of eternal and 
necessary procession, whereby the Spirit proceeds from the 
Father and the Son, and all those actions whatsoever involved 
in the mutual society of the divine persons. 

2d. Those actions which are extrinsic and transient, i. e., those 
free actions proceeding from God and terminating upon the 
creature, occurring successively in time, as God's acts in crea- 
tion, providence, and grace. 

3d. The third class are like the first, inasmuch as they are 
intrinsic and immanent, essential to the perfection of the divine 
nature and permanent states of the divine mind, but they differ, 
on the other hand, from the first class, inasmuch as they have 
respect to the whole dependent creation exterior to the God- 
head. These are the eternal and immutable decrees of God re- 
specting all beings and events whatsoever exterior to himself. 



THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE SUBJECT. 201 

3. What is the essential nature and source of the difficulties which 
oppress the human reason when speculating on this subject? 

These difficulties all have their ground in the perfectly in- 
scrutable relations of the eternal to the temporal, of the infi- 
nite to the finite, of God's absolute sovereignty to man's free 
agency, and of the unquestionable fact of the origination of 
sin to the holiness, goodness, wisdom, and power of God. They 
are peculiar to no system of theology, but press equally upon 
any system which acknowledges the existence and moral gov- 
ernment of God, and the moral agency of man. They have 
perplexed heathen philosophers of old, and deists in modern 
times, and Socinians, Pelagians, and Arminians just as sorely 
as Calvinists. 

4. From tohat fixed point of view are we to start in the study 
of this subject ? 

A self-existent, independent, all-perfect, and unchangeable 
God, existing alone from eternity, began to create the universe 
physical and moral in an absolute vacuum, moved to do so 
from motives and with reference to ends, and according to 
ideas and plans, wholely interior and self-prompted. Also, if 
God governs the universe, he must, as an intelligent being, 
govern it according to a plan ; and this plan must be perfect in 
its comprehension, reaching to all details. If he has a plan 
now, he must have had the same plan unchanged from the be- 
ginning. The decree of God therefore is the act of an infinite, 
absolute, eternal, unchangeable, and sovereign person, com- 
prehending a plan including all his works of all kinds, great 
and small, from the beginning of creation to an unending eter- 
nity. It must therefore be incomprehensible, and it can not be 
conditioned by any thing exterior to God himself — since it was 
matured before any thing exterior to him existed, and hence it- 
self embraces and determines all these supposed exterior things 
and all the conditions of them forever. 

5. What is the distinction between foreknoidedqe and foreordi- 
nation, and what is tlie general position of the Socinians on this 
'point ? 

Foreknowledge is an act of the infinite intelligence of God, 
knowing from all eternity, without change, the certain futuri- 
tion of all events of every class whatsoever that ever will come 
to pass. 

Foreordination is an act of the infinitely intelligent, fore- 
knowing, righteous, and benevolent will of God from all eter- 
nity determining the certain futurition of all events of every class 



202 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 

whatsoever that come to pass. Foreknowledge recognizes the 
certain futurition of events, while foreordination makes them 
certainly future. 

Socinians admit that the foreknowledge and the foreordi- 
nation of God are co-extensive, but they limit both to such 
events in creation and providence as God has determined to 
do by his own immediate agency, or to bring about through 
the agency of such second causes as act under the law of 
necessity. They deny that God has either foreordained or 
foreknown the voluntary actions of free agents, which from 
their very nature are contingent, and not objects of knowledge 
until after their occurrence. 

6. What is the position of the Arminians on this subject ? 

The Arminians agree with the Socinians in denying that 
God foreordains the voluntary acts of free agents, or in any 
way whatever determines them beforehand to be certainly 
future. But they differ from the Socinians and agree with us 
in holding that the certain foreknowledge of God extends 
equally to all events, as well to those in their nature con- 
tingent, as to those produced by second causes acting under 
the law of necessity. They hold that he foresees with absolute 
certainty from all eternity the futurition of the free actions of 
moral agents, and that he embraces and adjusts them in his 
eternal plan — which plan embraces all things, the free actions 
of moral agents as simply foreseen, and the actions of neces- 
sary agents as absolutely foreordained. 

7. State under several Jieads the Calvinistic doctrine on this 
subject, 

1st. God foreknows all events as certainly future because he 
has decreed them and thus made them certainly future. 

2d. God's decree relates equally to all future events of every 
kind, to the free actions of moral agents, as well as to action 
of necessary agents, to sinful as well as morally right actions. 

3d. Some things God has eternally decreed to do himself im- 
mediately, e. g., creation; other things to bring to pass through 
the action of second causes acting under a law of necessity, 
and again other things he has decreed to prompt or to permit 
free agents to do in the exercise of their free agency; yet the 
one class of events is rendered by the decree as certainly future 
as the other. 

4th. God has decreed ends as well as means, causes as well 
as effects, conditions and instrumentalities as well as the events 
which depend upon them. 

5th. God's decree determines only the certain futurition of 



STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE. 203 

events, it directly effects or causes no event. But the decree 
itself provides in every case that the event shall be effected 
by causes acting in a manner perfectly consistent with the 
nature of the event in question. Thus in the case of every 
free act of a moral agent the decree itself provides at the same 
time — (a.) That the agent shall be a free agent, (b.) That his 
antecedents and all the antecedents of the act in question shall 
be what they are. (c.) That all the present conditions of the 
act shall be what they are. (d.) That the act shall be perfectly 
spontaneous and free on the part of the agent, (e.) That it 
shall be certainly future. 

6th. God's purposes relating to all events of every kind 
constitute one single, all-comprehensive intention comprehend- 
ing all events, the free as free, the necessary as necessary, 
together with all their causes, conditions, and relations, as one 
indivisible system of things, every link of which is essential to 
the integrity of the whole. 

8. Show that as respects the eternal plan of an omniscient and 
omnipotent Creator ; foreknowledge is equivalent to foreordination. 

God possessing infinite foreknowledge and power, existed 
alone from eternity ; and in time, self-prompted, began to create 
in an absolute vacuum. Whatever limiting causes or condi- 
tions afterwards exist were first intentionally brought into 
being by himself, with perfect foreknowledge of their nature, 
relations, and results. If God then foreseeing that if he cre- 
ated a certain free agent and placed him in certain relations he 
would freely act in a certain way, and yet with that knowledge 
proceeded to create that very free agent and put him in precisely 
those positions, God would, in so doing, obviously predetermine 
the certain futurition of the act foreseen. God can never in his 
work be reduced to a choice of evils, because the entire system, 
and each particular end and cause, and condition, was clearly 
foreseen and by deliberate choice admitted by himself. 

9. What reasons may be assigned for contemplating the decrees 
of God as one aR-comprehensive intention ? 

1st. Because as shown below it is an eternal act, and alter nit as 
est una, individua et tota simul. 

2d. Because every event that actually occurs in the system 
of things is interlaced with all other events in endless involu- 
tion. No event is isolated. The color of the flower and the 
nest of the bird are related to the whole material universe. 
Even in our ignorance we can trace a chemical fact as related 
to myriad other facts, classified under the heads of mechanics, 
electricity, and light and life. 



204 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 

3d. God decrees events as they actually occur, i. e., events 
produced by causes, and depending upon conditions. The 
decree that determines the event can not leave out the cause 
or the condition upon which it depends. But the cause of one 
event, is the effect of another, and every event in the universe 
is more immediately or remotely the condition of every other, 
so that an eternal purpose on the part of God must be one all- 
comprehensive act. 

As our minds are finite, as it is impossible for us to embrace 
in one act of intelligent comprehension an infinite number of 
events in all their several relations and bearings, we necessarily 
contemplate events in partial groups, and we conceive of the 
purpose of God relating to them as distinct successive acts. 
Hence the Scriptures speak of the counsels, the purposes, and 
the judgments of God in the plural, and in order to indicate 
the intended relation of one event to another, they represent 
God as purposing one event, as the means or condition upon 
which another is suspended. This is all true because these 
events do have these relations to one another, but they all 
alike fall within, and none remain without, that one eternal 
design of God which comprehends equally all causes and all 
effects, all events and all conditions. 

All the speculative errors of men on this subject, spring from 
the tendency of the human mind to confine attention to one 
fragment of God's eternal purpose, and to regard it as isolated 
from the rest. The Decree of God separates no event from its 
causes or conditions any more than we find them separated in 
nature. We are as much unable to take in by one comprehen- 
sive act of intelligence all the works of God in nature as we 
are to take in all his decrees. We are forced to study his works 
part by part. But no intelligent student of nature thinks that 
any event is isolated. So we are forced to study his decrees 
part by part, but no intelligent theologian should suppose that 
there are any broken links or imperfect connection either here 
or there. 

10. How may it be proved that the decrees of God are eternal ? 

1st. As God is infinite, he is necessarily eternal and un- 
changeable, from eternity infinite in wisdom and knowledge, 
and absolutely independent in thought and purpose of every 
creature. There can never be any addition to his wisdom, nor 
surprise to his foreknowledge, nor resistance to his power, and 
therefore there never can be any occasion to reverse or modify 
that infinitely wise and righteous purpose which, from the per- 
fection of his nature, he formed from eternity. 

2d. It is asserted in Scripture. — {art diwvoi) Acts xv. 18; 



PROOF OF DOCTRINE. 205 

{jipo KarafioXifS no6f.iov) Eph. i. 4; 1 Pet. i. 20; {an dpxyt) 2 Thes. 
ii. 13; (jtpd xpovgov diGovioov} 2 Tim. i. 9; (jtpd tgov dioovaav^ 1 Cor. 
ii. 7; Eph. iii. 11, etc. 

11. Prove that the decrees are immutable. 

1st. This is certain from the fact that they are eternal, as 
just shown. 

2d. From the fact that God is eternal, absolute, immutable, 
and all-perfect in wisdom and power. 

3d. It is taught in Scripture. — Ps. xxxiii. 11 ; Is. xlvi. 9, etc. 

12. Prove from reason that the decrees of God comprehend all 
events. 

As shown above no event is isolated. If one event is 
decreed absolutely all events must therefore be determined 
with it. If one event is left indeterminate all future events 
will be left in greater or less degrees indeterminate with it. 

13. Prove the same from Scripture. 

1st. They affirm that the whole system in general is em- 
braced in the divine decrees.— Eph. i. 11 ; Acts xvii. 26 ; Dan. 
iv. 34, 35. 

2d. Thev affirm the same of fortuitous events. — Prov. xvi. 33; 
Matt, x. 29, 30. 

3d. Of the free actions of men. — Eph. ii. 10, 11 ; Phil. ii. 13. 

4th. Even of the wicked actions of men. " Him, being de- 
livered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, 
ye have taken and with wicked hands have crucified and slain." 
— Acts ii. 23. "For of a truth against- thy Holy Child whom 
thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the 
Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together, for 
to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before- 
hand to be done." — Acts iv. 27, 28; Acts xiii. 29; 1 Peter ii. 8; 
Jude 4; Rev. xvii. 17. As to the history of Joseph, compare 
Gen. xxxvii. 28 with Gen. xlv. 7, 8, and 1. 20: "So now it was 
not you that sent me hither but God." "But as for you, ye 
thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good." — See 
also Ps. xvii. 13, 14, and Is. x. 5 and 15, etc. 

14. Prove the universality of God's dewees from providence. 

It follows from the eternity, immutability, and infinite wis- 
dom, foreknowledge, and power of God, that his temporal work- 
ing in providence must in all tilings proceed according to his 
eternal purpose. — Eph. i. 11, and Acts xv. 18. But both Script- 
ure and reason alike teach us that the providential government 
of God comprehends all things in heaven and on earth as a 



206 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 

ichole, and every event in detail. — Prov. xvi. 33; Dan. iv. 34, 35; 
Matt. x. 29, 30. 

15. Prove this doctrine from prophecy. 

God has in the Scriptures foretold the certain occurrence of 
many events, including the free actions of men, which have 
afterwards surely come to pass. Now the ground of prophecy 
is foreknowledge, and the foundation of the foreknowledge of 
an event as certainly future, is God's decree that made it future. 
The eternal immutability of the decree is the only foundation of 
the infallibility either of the foreknowledge or of the prophecy. 
But if God has decreed certain future events, he must also have 
included in that decree all of their causes, conditions, co-ordi- 
nates, and consequences. No event is isolated; to make one 
certainly future implies the determination of the whole conca- 
tenation of causes and effects which constitute the universe. 

16. In what sense are tlie decrees of God free? 

The decrees of God are free in the sense that in decreeing 
he was solely actuated by his own infinitely wise, righteous, 
and benevolent good pleasure. He has always chosen as he 
pleased, and he has always pleased consistently with the per- 
fection of his nature. 

17. In what sense are the decrees of God sovereign? 

They are sovereign in the sense that while they determine 
absolutely whatever occurs without God, their whole reason 
and motive is within the divine nature, and they are neither 
suggested nor occasioned by, nor conditioned upon any thing 
whatsoever without him. 

18. What is the distinction between absolute and conditional 
decrees ? 

An absolute decree is one which, while it may include con- 
ditions, is suspended upon no condition, i. e,, it makes the event 
decreed, of whatever kind, whether of mechanical necessity or 
of voluntary agency, certainly future, together with all the 
causes and conditions, of whatever nature, upon which the 
event depends. 

A conditional decree is one which decrees that an event 
shall happen upon the condition that some other event, possi- 
ble but uncertain (not decreed), shall actually occur. 

The Socinians denied that the free actions of men, being 
intrinsically uncertain, are the objects of knowledge, and there- 
fore affirmed that they are not foreknown by God. They held 
that God decreed absolutely to create the human race, and 



NO CONDITIONAL DECREES. 207 

after Adam sinned he decreed absolutely to save all repenting 
and believing sinners, yet that he decreed nothing concerning 
the sinning nor the salvation of individual men. 

The Arminians, admitting that God certainly foreknows the 
acts of free agents as well as all other events, maintain that he 
absolutely decreed to create man, and foreseeing that man 
would sin he absolutely decreed to provide a salvation for all, 
and actually to save all that repent and believe, but that he 
conditionally decreed to save individual men on the condition, 
foreseen but not foreordained, of their faith and obedience. 

19. What are the objections to attributing conditional decrees 
to God? ■ 

Calvinists admit that the all-comprehensive decree of God 
determines all events according to their inherent nature, the 
actions of free agents as free, and the operation of necessary 
causes, necessarily. It also comprehends the whole system of 
causes and effects of every kind ; of the motives and conditions 
of free actions, as well as the necessary causes of necessary 
events. God decreed salvation upon the condition of faith, 
yet in the very same act he decreed the faith of those persons 
whose salvation he has determined. " Whom he did predesti- 
nate, them he also coded.'" Thus his decree from the beginning 
embraced and provided for the free agency of man, as well as 
the regular procedures of nature, according to established laws. 
Thus also his covenants, or conditional promises, which he 
makes in time, are in all their parts the execution of his eter- 
nal purpose, which comprehended the promise, and the con- 
dition in their several places as means to the end. But that 
the decree of God can be regarded as suspended upon condi- 
tions which are not themselves determined by the decree is 
evidently impossible. 

1st. This decree has been shown above (Questions 3-7) to 
be eternal and all-comprehensive. A condition implies liability 
to change. The whole universe forming one system, if one part 
is contingent the whole must be contingent, for if one condi- 
tion failed the whole concatenation of causes and effects would 
be deranged. If the Arminian should rejoin that although God 
did not foreordain the free acts of men, yet he infallibly fore- 
knew and provided for them, and therefore his plans can not 
fail ; then the Calvinist replies that if God foresaw that a given 
man, in given circumstances, would act at a given juncture in 
a certain way, then God in decreeing to create that very man 
and place him in those very circumstances, at that very junc- 
ture, did foreordain the certain futurition of that very event, 
and of all its consequences. That God's decree is immutable and 



208 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 

does not depend upon uncertain conditions, is proved (1) from 
its eternity, (2) from the direct assertions of Scripture. — Isa. 
xiv. 24, 27; xlvi. 10; Ps. xxxiii. 11; Prov. xix. 21; Rom. ix. 11; 
Eph. iii. 11. 

2d. The foreknowledge of God, as Arminians admit, is eter- 
nal and certain, and embraces all events, free as well as neces- 
sary. But, (1) as shown in the preceding paragraph, this 
foreknowledge involves foreordination, and (2) certainty in 
the foreknowledge implies certainty in the event; certainty 
implies determination; determination leaves us to choose be- 
tween the decree of an infinitely wise, righteous, and benevo- 
lent God, and a blind fate. 

3d. A conditional decree would subvert the sovereignty of 
God and make him, as to the administration of his whole gov- 
ernment and the execution of all his plans, dependent upon the 
uncontrollable actions of his own creatures. But the decrees of 
God are sovereign. — Isa. xl. 13, 14 ; Dan. iv. 35 ; Rom. ix. 15-18. 

4th. His decree is declared to depend upon his own " good 
pleasure," and the " counsel of his own will." — Eph. i. 5, 11 ; 
Rom. ix. 11; Matt. xi. 25, 26. 

5th. The decree of God includes the means and conditions. 
2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 2; Eph. i. 4. 

6th. His decree absolutely determines the free actions of 
men. — Acts iv. 27, 28 ; Eph. ii. 10. 

7th. God himself works in his people that faith and obedi- 
ence which are called the conditions of their salvation. — Phil, 
ii. 13; Eph. ii. 8; 2 Tim. ii. 25. 

20. How far are the decrees of God efficacious and how far 
permissive ? 

All the decrees of God are equally efficacious in the sense 
that they all infallibly determine the certain futurition of the 
event decreed. Theologians, however, classify the decrees of 
God thus: 1st. As efficacious in as far as they respect those 
events which he has determined to effect through necessary 
causes, or in his own immediate agency. 2d. As permissive, 
as far as they respect those events which he has determined 
to allow dependent free agents to effect. 

21. Hoio may it he proved that the decree of God renders tte 
event certain? 

1st. From the nature of the decree itself as sovereign and 
unchangeable (see above). 

2d. From the essential nature of God in his relation to his 
creation, as an infinitely wise and powerful sovereign. 

3d. The foreknowledge of God regards future events as cer- 



DIFFERS FROM DOCTRINE OF FATE. 209 

tain. The ground of this certainty must be either in God, or 
in the events themselves, which last is fatalism. 

4th. The Scriptures ascribe a certainty of futurition to the 
events decreed. There is a needs-be that the event should 
happen "as it was determined." — Luke xviii. 31-33; xxiv. 46; 
Acts ii. 23; xiii. 29; 1 Cor. xi. 19; Matt. xvi. 21. 

22. How does this doctrine, that God's universal decree renders 
the occurrence of all future events certain, differ from the ancient 
doctrine of faith ? 

The Calviuistic doctrine of Decrees agrees with Fatalism 
only at one point, i. e., in maintaining that the events in ques- 
tion are certainly future. But the Arminian doctrine of divine 
foreknowledge does precisely the same thing. In every other 
point our doctrine differs from the heathen doctrine of Fate. 

Fatalism supposes all events to be certainly determined by a 
universal law of necessary causation, acting blindly and by a 
simple unintelligent force effecting its end irresistibly and irre- 
spective of the free Avills of the free agents involved. There 
was no room left for final ends or purposes, no place for motive 
or choice, no means or conditions, but a simple evolution of 
necessity. 

On the other hand the Calviuistic doctrine of Decrees postu- 
lates the infinite all-comprehensive plan of an infinitely wise, 
righteous, powerful, and benevolent Father, whose plan is de- 
termined not by mere will, but according to the " counsel of his 
ivill" securing the best ends, and adopting the best means in 
order to attain those ends — and whose plan is not executed by 
mere force, but through the instrumentality of all classes of 
second causes, free as well as necessary, each pre-adapted to its 
place and function, and each acting without constraint accord- 
ing to its nature. 

There is an infinite difference between a machine and a man, 
between the operation of motives, intelligence, free choice, and 
the mechanical forces which act upon matter. There is pre- 
cisely the same difference between the system of divine decrees, 
and the heathen doctrine of fate. 

23. What objection to this doctrine of unconditional decrees is 
derived from the admitted fact of mans free agency ? 

Objection. — Foreknowledge implies the certainty of the 
event. The decree of God implies that he has determined it 
to be certain. But that he has determined it to be certain 
implies, upon the part of God, an efficient agency in bringing 
about that event which is inconsistent with the free agency 
of man. 



210 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 

We answer : It is evidently only the execution of the decree, 
and not the decree itself, which can interfere with the free 
agency of man. On the general subject of the method in 
which God executes his decrees, see below, the chapters on 
Providence, Effectual Calling, and Regeneration. 

We have here room only for the following general statement: 

1st. The Scriptures attribute all that is good in man to God; 
these "he works in us both to will and to do of his good pleas- 
ure." All the sins which men commit the Scriptures attribute 
wholly to the man himself. Yet God's permissive decree does 
truly determine the certain futurition of the act; because God 
knowing certainly that the man in question would in the given 
circumstances so act, did place that very man in precisely those 
circumstances that he should so act. But in neither case, 
whether in working the good in us, or in placing us where we 
will certainly do the wrong, does God in executing his purpose 
ever violate or restrict the perfect freedom of the agent. 

2d. We have the fact distinctly revealed that God has de- 
creed the free acts of men, and yet that the actors were none 
the less responsible, and consequently none the less free in their 
acts.— Acts ii. 23; iii. 18; iv. 27, 28; Gen. 1. 20, etc. We never 
can understand how the infinite God acts upon the finite spirit 
of man, but it is none the less our duty to believe. 

3d. According to that theory of the will which makes the 
freedom of man to consist in the liberty of indifference, i. e., that 
the will acts in every case of choice in a state of perfect equi- 
librium equally independent of all motives for or against, and 
just as free to choose in opposition to all desires as in harmony 
with them, it is evident that the very essence of liberty consists 
in uncertainty. If this be the true theory of the will, God could 
not execute his decrees without violating the liberty of the 
agent, and certain foreknowledge would be impossible. 

But as shown below, in Chapter XV., the true theory of 
the will is that the liberty of the agent consists in his acting 
in each case as, upon the whole, he pleases, i. e., according to 
the dispositions and desires of his heart, under the immediate 
view which his reason takes of the case. These dispositions 
and desires are determined in their turn by the character of 
the agent in relation to his circumstances, which character 
and circumstances are surely not beyond the control of the 
infinite God. 

24. What is meant by those who teach that God is the author 
of sin ? 

Many reasoners of a Pantheistic tendency, e. g., Dr. Emmons, 
maintain that as God is infinite in sovereignty, and by his de- 



DOES NOT MAKE GOD THE AUTHOR OF SIN 211 

cree determines, so by his providence he effects every thing 
which comes to pass, so that he is actually the only real agent 
in the universe. Still they religiously hold that God is an in- 
finitely holy agent in effecting that which, produced/rom God, 
is righteous, but, produced in us, is sin. 

25. How may it be shoivn that God is not the author of sin ? 

The admission of sin into the creation of an infinitely wise, 
powerful, and holy God is a great mystery, of which no explana- 
tion can be given. But that God can not be the author of sin 
is proved — 

1st. From the nature of sin, which is, as to its essence, 
dvo/iia, want of conformity to law, and disobedience to the 
Lawgiver. 

2d. From the nature of God, who is as to essence holy, and 
in the administration of his kingdom always forbids and pun- 
ishes sin. 

3d. From the nature of man, who is a responsible free agent 
who originates his own acts. The Scriptures always attribute 
to divine grace the good actions, and to the evil heart the 
sinful actions of men. 

26. How may it be slioivn tliat the doctrine of unconditional 
decrees does not represent God as the author of sin ? 

The whole difficulty lies in the awful fact that sin exists. 
If God foresaw it and yet created the agent, and placed him in 
the very circumstances under which he did foresee the sin would 
be committed, then he did predetermine it. If he did not fore- 
see it, or, foreseeing it, could not prevent it, then he is not 
infinite in knowledge and in power, but is surprised and pre- 
vented by his creatures. The doctrine of unconditional decrees 
presents no special difficulty. It represents God as decreeing 
that the sin shall eventuate as the free act of the sinner, and 
not as by any form of co-action causing, nor by any form of 
temptation inducing, him to sin. 

27. What is the objection to this doctrine derived from the use 
of means ? 

This is the most common form of objection in the mouths 
of ignorant and irreligious people. If an immutable decree 
makes all future events certain, u if ivhat is to be, will be" then 
it follows that no means upon our part can avoid the result, 
nor can any means be necessary to secure it. 

Hence as the use of means is commanded by God, and 
instinctively natural to man, since many events have been 
effected by their use, and many more in the future evidently 



212 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 

depend upon them, it follows that God has not rendered certain 
any of those events which depend upon the use of means on 
the part of men. 

28. What is the ground upon which the use of means is founded ? 

This use is founded upon the command of God, and upon 
that fitness in the means to secure the end desired, which our 
instincts, our intelligence, and our experience disclose to us. 
But neither the fitness nor the efficiency of the means to se- 
cure the end, reside inherently and independently in the means 
themselves, but were originally established and are now sus- 
tained by God himself; and in the working of all means God 
always presides and directs providentially. This is necessarily 
involved in any Christian theory of Providence, although we 
can never explicate the relative action (concur sus) of God on 
man, the infinite upon the finite. 

29. How may it be shoivn that the doctrine of decrees does not 
afford a rational ground of discouragement in the use of means ? 

This difficulty (stated above, Question 27) rests entirely in 
a habit of isolating one part of God's eternal decree from the 
whole (see Question 7), and in confounding the Christian doc- 
trine of decrees with the heathen doctrine of fate (see Ques. 22.) 
But when God decreed an event he made it certainly future, 
not as isolated from other events, or as independent of all 
means and agents, but as dependent upon means and upon 
agents freely using those means. The same decree which 
makes the event certain, also determines the mode by which 
it shall be effected, and comprehends the means with the 
ends. This eternal, all-comprehensive act embraces all exist- 
ence through all duration, and all space as one system, and 
at once provides for the whole in all its parts, and for all the 
parts in all their relations to one another and to the whole. 
An event, therefore, may be certain in respect to God's decree 
and foreknowledge, and at the same time truly contingent in 
the apprehension of man, and in its relation to the means upon 
which it depends. 

30. What are the distinctions to be borne in mind between the 
objections to the proof of a doctrine, and objections to the doctrine 
when proved ? 

Eeasonable objections to the evidence, Scriptural or other- 
wise, upon which the claims of any doctrine is based, are evi- 
dently legitimate. These objections against the proof estab- 
lishing the truth of the doctrine ought always to be allowed 
their full weight. But when once the doctrine has been proved 



PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE DOCTRINE. 213 

to be taught in Scripture objections levelled against it, obviously 
have no weight at all until they amount to a sufficient force to 
prove that the Scriptures themselves are not the word of God. 
Before they reach that measure, objections levelled against the 
doctrine itself, which do not affect the evidence upon which it 
rests (and most of the objections to the Calvinistic doctrine of 
Decrees are of this order) only illustrate the obvious truth that 
the finite mind of man can not fully comprehend the matters 
partially revealed and partially concealed in the word of God. 

31. What are the proper practical effects of this doctrine ? 

Humility, in view of the infinite greatness and sovereignty 
of God, and of the dependence of man. Confidence and im- 
plicit reliance upon the wisdom, righteousness, goodness, and 
immutability of God's purposes, and cheerful obedience to his 
commandments; always remembering that God's precepts, as 
distinctly revealed, and not his decrees, are the rule of our 
duty. 



CHAPTER XL 

PREDESTINATION. 

1. What are the different senses in which the word predestina- 
tion is used by theologians ? 

1st. As equivalent to the generic word decree, as including 
all God's eternal purposes. 

2d. As embracing only those purposes of God which spe- 
cially respect his moral creatures. 

3d. As designating only the counsel of God concerning 
fallen men, including the sovereign election of some and the 
most righteous reprobation of the rest. 

4th. It is sometimes restricted in the range of its usage so 
far as to be applied only to the eternal election of God's people 
to everlasting life. 

The sense marked as 3d, above, is the most proper usage. — 
See Acts iv. 27, 28. 

2. In what senses are the words Ttpoyivoo6Kco (to know before- 
hand), and 7tpdyvGo6z$ (foreknowledge), used in the New Testament? 

IIpoy-LVGQ6xGo is compounded of itpo, before, and ytvcodxa), of 
which the primary sense is to know, and the secondary sense to 
approve, e. g., 2 Tim. ii. 19; John x. 14, 15; Eom. vii. 15. This 
word occurs five times in the New Testament. Twice, e. g., 
Acts xxvi. 5 and 2 Pet. iii. 17, it signifies previous knowledge, 
apprehension, simply. In the remaining three instances, Eom. 
viii. 29 ; xi. 2 ; 1 Pet. i. 20, it is used in the secondary sense of 
approve beforehand. This is made evident from the context, 
for it is used to designate the ground of God's predestination 
of individuals to salvation, which elsewhere is expressly said 
to be " not according to our works, but according to his own 
purpose and grace," and "to the good pleasure of his will," 
2 Tim. i. 9; Eom. ix. 11; Eph. i. 5. 

npoyvGotiis occurs but twice in the New Testament, e. g., 
Acts ii. 23 and 1 Pet. i. 2, in both of which instances it evi- 
dently signifies approbation, or choice from beforehand. It is 
explained by the equivalent phrase "determinate counsel." 



NATIONAL ELECTION. 215 

3. What is the Neiu Testament usage of the words kxXsyco (to 
elect) and hukoyi) (election)? > ~ w 

'EkXevoj occurs twenty-one times in the New Testament. 
It is used to signify, 1st, Christ's choice of men to be apostles. 
Luke vi. 13; John vi. 70. 2d. God's choice of the Jewish 
nation as a peculiar people. — Acts xiii. 17. 3d. The choice of 
men by God, or by the church, for some special service. — Acts 
xv. 7, 22. 4th. The choice made by Mary of the better part. 
Luke x. 42. 5th. In the great majority of instances God's eter- 
nal election of individual men to everlasting life. — John xv. 16 ; 
1 Cor. i. 27, 28; Eph. i. 4; James ii. 5. 

'ExXoyr/ occurs seven times in the New Testament. Once it 
signifies an election to the apostolic office. — Acts ix. 15. Once 
it signifies those chosen to eternal life. — Eom. xi. 7. In every 
other case it signifies the purpose or the act of God in choosing 
his own people to salvation. — Rom. ix. 11; xi. 5, 28; 1 Thess. 
i. 4; 2 Pet. i. 10. 

4. What other words are used by the Holy Ghost in the New 
Testament to set forth the truth on this subject ? 

LTpoopiiEiv occurs six times in the New Testament. — Acts 
iv. 28; Rom. viii. 29, 30; 1 Cor. ii. 7, and Eph. i. 5, 11. In 
every ,case it signifies the absolute predestination of God. 

npoTiBrjm occurs three times in the New Testament. In 
Rom. i. 13 it signifies a purpose of Paul, and in Rom. iii. 25 
and Eph. i. 9, a purpose of God. 

npoEroijua&iv occurs twice, Rom. ix. 23 and Eph. ii. 10, pre- 
pare or appoint beforehand. 

5. To whom is election referred in the Scriptures ? 

The eternal decree, as a whole, and in all its parts, is doubt- 
less the concurrent act of all the three persons of the Trinity, 
in their perfect oneness of counsel and will. 

But in the economy of salvation, as revealed to us, the act 
of sovereign election is specially attributed to the Father, as 
his personal part, even as redemption is attributed to the Son, 
and sanctification to the Spirit. — John xvii. 6, 9; vi. 64, 65; 
1 Thess. v. 9. 

6. State that theory of Predestination designated by its advo- 
cates the " Theory of National Election." 

This is the theory that the only election spoken of in the 
Bible concerning the salvation of men consists of the divine pre- 
destination of communities and nations to the knowledge of the 
true religion and the external privileges of the gospel. This 



216 PREDESTINA TION. 

form of election, which undoubtedly represents a great gospel 
fact, is eminently illustrated in the case of the Jews. This is 
the view advocated by Archbishop Sumner in his work on 
"Apostolic Preaching," quoted by Dr. Cunningham. 

7. State the theory styled by its advocates the "Theory of Ecclesi- 
astical Individualis m. ' ' 

The view advocated by Mr. Stanley Faber in his " Primi- 
tive Doctrine of Election," and by Archbishop Whately in his 
"Essays on some of the Difficulties in the Writings of the 
Apostle Paul," and others, is styled the doctrine of "Ecclesias- 
tical Individualism," and it involves the affirmation that God 
predetermines the relation of individual men to the outward 
church and the means of grace. Thus by birth and subsequent 
providences he casts the lot of some men in the most favorable, 
and of others in the least favorable circumstances. 

8. What is the Arminian doctrine of election ? 

The Arminians admit the foreknowledge of God, but they 
deny his absolute foreordination as it relates to the salvation 
of individuals. Their distinguishing doctrine is that God did 
not eternally make choice of certain persons and ordain their 
salvation, but that he made choice of certain characters, as holi- 
ness and faith and perseverance; or of certain classes of men 
who possess those characters, e. g., believers who persevere 
unto the end. 

Since they admit that God foreknows from eternity with 
absolute certainty precisely what individuals will repent and 
believe and persevere therein to the end, it follows that their 
doctrine admits of the statement that God eternally predesti- 
nated certain persons, who he foresaw would repent and be- 
lieve and persevere to life and salvation, on the ground of that 
faith and perseverance thus foreseen. 

9. Point out the several principles in ivhich the above-mentioned 
views agree and wherein they differ. 

The theories of "National Election" and of "Ecclesiastical 
Individualism," both teach universally admitted facts, namely 
that God does predestinate individuals and communities and 
nations to the external privileges of the gospel and the use of 
the means of grace. This neither any Arminian nor any Cal- 
vinist will deny. But these theories are both vicious and both 
identical with the Arminian theory, in that they deny that God 
unconditionally predestinates either the free actions or the ulti- 
mate salvation of individuals. They admit that he gives cer- 



DIFFERENT THEORIES CONTRASTED. 217 

tain men a better chance than others, but hold that each man's 
ultimate fate is not determined by God's decree, but left de- 
pendent upon the free wills of the men themselves. Neverthe- 
less, while these theories are all consistently Arminian in fun- 
damental principle, yet they differ in the manner in which 
they attempt to bring the Scriptures concerned into harmony 
with that system. These theories differ among themselves as 
to the objects, the ends, and the grounds of this election. As to 
the objects of the election spoken of in Scripture, the Armin- 
ian, the Calvinistic, and "Ecclesiastical Individualism" theories 
agree in making them individuals. The theory of "National 
Election ". makes them nations or communities. As to the end 
of this election the Calvinistic and Arminian theories make it 
the eternal salvation of the individuals elected. The theories 
of "National Election" and of "Ecclesiastical Individualism" 
make it admission to the privilege of the means of grace. As 
to the ground of this election spoken of in the Scripture, ad- 
vocates of the Calvinistic, the "National Election," and the 
" Ecclesiastical Individualism " theories agree in making it the 
sovereign good pleasure of God, while the Arminians hold it 
is conditioned upon the faith, repentance, and perseverance 
certainly foreseen in each individual case. 

It is obvious that the Calvinistic Doctrine of Decrees in- 
cludes the absolute election of both individuals and of commu- 
nities and nations to the use of the means of grace and the 
external advantages of the Church. It is also obvious that 
the admission of the principle of absolute election, as far as 
this, must be made by all Arminians as well as Calvinists, 
and hence this admission alone does not' discriminate between 
the two great contesting systems. The only question which 
touches the true matter in debate is, What is the ground of the 
eternal predestination of individuals to salvation? Is it the 
foreseen faith and repentance of the individuals themselves, 
or the sovereign good pleasure of God ? Every Christian must 
take one side or the other of this question. If he takes the 
side which makes foreseen faith the ground, he is an Arminian 
no matter what else he holds. If he takes the side which 
makes the good pleasure of God the ground, he is a Calvinist. 

This division among themselves, and this alternate agree- 
ment with and difference from the Calvinistic positions on this 
subject, is a very suggestive illustration of the extreme diffi- 
culty the advocates of Arminian principles have in accommo- 
dating the words of Scripture to their doctrine. 

In a polemic point of view the Calvinists have the capital 
advantage of being able to divide their opponents, and to refute 
them in detail. 



218 PREDESTINA TION. 

10. State the three points involved in the Calvinistic doctrine on 
this subject. 

Calvinists hold, as shown in the preceding chapter, that 
God's Decrees are absolute and relate to all classes of events 
whatsoever. They therefore maintain that while nations, com- 
munities, and individuals are predestined absolutely to all of 
every kind of good and bad that befalls them, nevertheless the 
Scriptures teach specifically an election (1) of individuals, (2) to 
grace and salvation, (3) founded not upon the foreseen faith of 
the persons elected, but upon the sovereign good pleasure of 
God alone. 

11. State the Presumption of the truth of the above arising from 
the fact that impartial, infidel and rationalistic interpreters admit 
that the letter of the Scriptures can be interpreted only in a Cal- 
vinistic sense. 

Besides the presumption in favor of Calvinism arising from 
the fact above stated, that anti-Calvinistic interpreters of the 
Scripture are reduced to all kinds of various hypotheses in order 
to avoid the obvious force of the Scriptural testimony upon the 
subject, we now cite the additional presumption, arising from 
the fact that rationalists and infidels generally, who agree with 
Arminians in their intense opposition to Calvinistic Principles, 
yet not being restrained by faith in the inspiration of the Bible, 
are frank enough to confess that the Book can be fairly inter- 
preted only in a Calvinistic sense. This is thus the impartial 
testimony of an enemy. Wegscheider in his u Institutiones The- 
ologice Christianas Dogmaticce," Pt. III., Ch. hi., § 145,* the high- 
est authority as to the results of German Eationalists in Dog- 
matic theology, says that the passages in question do teach 
Calvinistic doctrine, but that Paul was misled by the crude 
and erroneous notions prevalent in that age, and especially by 
the narrow spirit of Jewish particularism. See also Gibbon's 
"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Chapter xxxiii., 
Note 31. — "Perhaps a reasoner still more independent may 
smile in his turn, when he peruses an Arminian Commentary 
on the Epistle to the Romans." 



12. Prove from Scripture that the subjects of election are 
viduals and that the end of election is eternal life. 

1st. They are always spoken of as individuals, and the elec- 
tion of which they are the subjects is always set forth as having 
grace or glory as its end. — Acts xiii. 48 ; Eph. i. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 13. 
2d. The elect are in Scripture explicitly distinguished from the 

* Dr. Wm. Cunningham, "Hist. Theo.," Vol. II., p. 463. 



THE DOCTRINE PROVED. 219 

mass of the visible Church, and hence their election could not 
have been merely to the external privileges of that Church. — 
Rom. xi. 7. 3d. The names of the elect are said " to be written 
in heaven" and to be in "the book of life." — Heb. xii. 23; 
Phil. iv. 3. 4th. The blessings which it is explicitly declared 
are secured by this election are gracious and saving, they are 
the elements and results of salvation, inseparable from it, and 
pertain not to nations but to individuals as their subjects, e. g., 
"adoption of sons," "to be conformed to the image of his Son," 
etc, — Rom. viii. 29; Eph. i. 5; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Thess. v. 9; 
Rom. ix. 15, 16. 

13. Show that this election is not founded on ivories tvhether 
foreseen or not. 

This follows — 1st. From the general doctrine of Decrees 
which has been established in the last chapter. If God's 
decrees relate to and determine all events of every class, it 
follows that no undecreed events remain to condition his de- 
cree or any element thereof, and also that he has decreed faith 
and repentance as well as the salvation which is conditioned 
upon them. 

2d. It is expressly declared in Scripture that this election is 
not conditioned upon works of any kind. — Rom. xi. 4-7 ; 2 Tim. 
i. 9; Rom. ix. 11. 

14. Shoiv that in Scripture it is habitually declared to be founded 
on " the good pleasure of God" and " the counsel of his own will." 

Eph. i. 5-11; 2 Tim. i. 9; John xv. 16, 19; Matt. xi. 25, 26; 
Rom. ix. 10-18. 

15. State the argument derived from the fact that "faith" " re- 
pentance" and " evangelical obedience" are said to be the fruits of 
the Election. 

It is self-evident that the same actions can not be both the 
grounds upon which election rests, and the fruits in which that 
election is designed to result. Since the Bible teaches that 
"faith," "repentance," and "evangelical obedience" are the 
latter, they can not be the former. The Scriptures do so teach 
in Eph. i. 4. "According as he hath chosen us in him before the 
foundation of the world that we should be holy, and without blame 
before him in love." — 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Pet. \. 2; Eph. ii. 10. 

16. The same from the fact that faith and repentance are said 
to be the gifts of God. 

If faith and repentance are the "gifts of God," then a man's 
possessing them results from God's act. If it results from God's 



220 . PREDESTINATION. 

act it must result from his eternal purpose. If they be the re- 
sults of his purpose, they can not be the conditions upon which 
that purpose is suspended. They are affirmed to be the "gifts 
of God" in Eph.ii. 8; Acts v. 31; 1 Cor. iv. 7. 

17. State the argument derived from what tlie Scriptures teach 
as to the nature and extent of innate depravity and inability. 

The teaching of Scripture on these heads will be found 
stated and established in Chapters XIX. and XX. Now if 
men are born into the world with an antecedent prevailing 
tendency in their nature to sin, and they are ever, until regen- 
erated by the Spirit of God, totally and inalienably averse to 
and incapable of all good, it follows that unregenerate human 
nature is incapable either of tending to or of perfecting faith 
and repentance as the conditions required. If election is con- 
ditioned upon faith and repentance, then the man must produce 
his own faith and repentance, or help to produce them. But if 
human nature can neither produce nor help to produce them, 
it follows either that no man can be elected, or that faith and 
repentance can not be the condition of election. 

1 8. State the same from what the Scriptures teach of tJw nature 
and necessity of regeneration. 

In Chapter XXIX. it will be proved that the Scriptures 
teach (1) that regeneration is an act of God; (2) that with 
respect to that act the soul is passive ; (3) that it is absolutely 
necessary in the case of every living man. Hence it follows 
that if it be in no sense man's work, but in every sense God's 
act alone, it can not be the condition upon which God's purpose 
is suspended, but an event determined by that purpose. 

19. Shoiv that the Scriptures teach that all the elect believe, and 
that oxly the elect believe. 

All the elect believe.— John x. 16, 27-29; John vi. 37-39; 
John xvii. 2, 9, 24. And only the elect believe. — John x. 26. And 
those who believe do so because they are elect. — Acts xiii. 48, 
and ii. 47. 

20. What argument is to be drawn from the fact that all evan- 
gelical Christians of every theological school express the sentiments 
proper to the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election in all 
their prayers and hymns ? 

That form of doctrine must be false which can not be con- 
sistently embodied in personal religious experience and in devo- 
tion. That form of doctrine must be true which all Christians 
of all theoretical opinions always find themselves obliged to 



THE DOCTRINE PROVED. 221 

express when they come to commune with God. Now all the 
psalms and hymns and prayers, written and spontaneous, of 
all evangelical Christians, embody the principles and breathe 
the spirit of Calvinism. They all pray God to make men repent 
and believe, to come to and to receive the Saviour. If God 
gives all men common and sufficient grace, and if the reason 
why one man repents, is that he makes good use of that grace, 
and the reason another does not believe, is that he does not 
use that grace, if the only cause of difference is in the men, it 
follows that we ought to pray men to convert themselves, i. e., 
to make themselves to differ. But all agree in asking God to 
save us, and in giving him all the thanks when it is done. 

21. Shoiv that Paul must have held our position on this subject 
from the nature of the objections made against his doctrine, and 
from tlie answers he gave them. 

Paul's doctrine is identical with the Calvinistic view. 1st. 
Because he expressly teaches it. 2d. Because the objections he 
notices as brought against his doctrine are the same as those 
brought against ours. The design of the whole passage is to 
prove God's sovereign right to cast off the Jews as a peculiar 
people, and to call all men indiscriminately by the gospel. 

This, he argues, 1st, that God's ancient promises embraced 
not the natural descendants of Abraham as such, but the spir- 
itual seed. 2d. That " God is perfectly sovereign in the distri- 
bution of his favors." 

But against this doctrine of divine sovereignty two objec- 
tions are introduced and answered by Paul. 

1st. It is unjust for God thus of his mere good pleasure to 
show mercy to one and to reject another, v. 14. This precise 
objection is made against our doctrine at the present time also. 
" It represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as 
more false, more cruel, and more unjust." — " Methodist Doc- 
trinal Tracts," pp. 170, 171. This Paul answers by two argu- 
ments. (1.) God claims the right, "I will have mercy on whom 
I will have mercy." — Rom. ix. 15, 16. (2.) God in his provi- 
dence exercises the right, as in the case of Pharaoh, vs. 17, 18. 

2d. The second objection is that this doctrine is inconsistent 
with the liberty and accountability of men. This would be 
an absurd objection to bring against Paul's doctrine if he were 
an Arminian, but it is brought every day by Arminians against 
our doctrine. 

Paul answers this objection by condescending to no appeal 
to human reason, but simply (1) by asserting God's sovereignty 
as Creator, and man's dependence as creature, and (2) by as- 
serting the just exposure of all men alike to wrath as sinners, 



222 PREDESTINA TION. 

vs. 20-24. — See Analysis of chap. ix. 6-24, in Hodge's " Com. 
on Romans." 

22. Discriminate accurately tJie tivo elements involved in the 
doctrine of Reprobation. 

Reprobation is the aspect which God's eternal decree pre- 
sents in its relation to that portion of the human race which 
shall be finally condemned for their sins. 

It is, 1st, negative, inasmuch as it consists in passing over 
these, and refusing to elect them to life; and, 2d, positive, in- 
asmuch as they are condemned to eternal misery. 

In respect to its negative element, reprobation is simply 
sovereign, since those passed over were no worse than those 
elected, and the simple reason both for the choosing and for 
the passing over was the sovereign good pleasure of God. 

In respect to its positive element, reprobation is not sover- 
eign, but simply judicial, because God inflicts misery in any 
case only as the righteous punishment of sin. "The rest of 
mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable coun- 
sel of his own will, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor 
and wrath for their sins. — " Con. Faith," Chap, iii., Sec. 7. 

23. Show that these positions are necessarily involved in the 
general doctrine of Decrees and in the special doctrine of the election 
of some men to eternal life. 

As above stated, this doctrine of reprobation is self-evidently 
an inseparable element of the doctrines of decrees and of elec- 
tion. If God unconditionally elects whom he pleases, he must 
unconditionally leave whom he pleases to themselves. He 
must foreordain the non-believing, as well as the believing, 
although the events themselves are brought to pass by very 
different causes. 

24. Prove that it is taught in Scripture. 

Rom. ix. 18, 21; 1 Pet. ii. 8; Jude 4; Rev. xiii. 8. " I thank 
thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast 
hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed 
them unto babes, even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in thy 
sight." — Matt. xi. 25. "Ye believe not, because ye are not my 
sheep." — John x. 26. 

25. Show that tJie same objection was made against PauTs doc- 
trine that is made against ours. 

"Why doth he yet find fault?" If he has not given gra- 
cious ability to obey, how can he command? — See also "Metho- 
dist Doctrinal Tracts," p. 171. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 223 

The apostle answers by showing, 1st (verses 20, 21), that 
God is under no obligation to extend his grace to all or to any ; 
and, 2d, that the " vessels of wrath " were condemned for their 
own sins, to manifest God's just wrath, while the "vessels of 
mercy " were chosen not for any good in them, but to manifest 
his glorious grace (verses 22, 23). 

26. Show tlie identity of Paul's doctrine with ours from the 
illustrations he uses in the ninth chapter of Romans. 

" Hath not the potter power {k%ov6ia) over the clay of the 
same lump to make one vessel to honor, and another to dis- 
honor, v. 21. Here the whole point of the illustration lies in 
the fact that there is no difference in the clay — it is clay of the 
same lump — the sole difference is made by the will of the pot- 
ter. In the case of Esau and Jacob, the very point is that one 
is just as good as the other — that there is no difference in the 
children — ^but that the whole difference is made by the " pur- 
pose of God according to election " — " for the children being not 
yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of 
God according to election might stand, not of ivorks, but of him that 
calleth," v. 11. 

27. In what sense is God said to harden men ? 

See Rom. ix. 18, and John xii. 40. 

This is doubtless a judicial act wherein God withdraws from 
sinful men,- whom he has not elected to life, for the just pun- 
ishment of their sins, all gracious influences, and leaves them 
to the unrestrained tendencies of their own hearts, and to the 
uncounteracted influences of the world and the devil. 

28. State tJw objection brought against the Calvinistic doctrine 
of election on the ground that it is inconsistent with Justice. 

It is maintained that if God by a sovereign unconditional 
decree determines to pass by some men, and to withhold from 
them the grace necessary to enable them to repent and believe 
in Christ, it is unjust in God to hold them accountable, and to 
punish them for their want of faith. 

29. State the fundamental view which necessarily underlies all 
Arminianism as to the relation ivhich the remedial work of Christ 
sustains to the justice of God, and as to the relation ivhich the human 
race by nature sustains to the divine government. 

When the Arminian system is sifted to its fundamental 
principles, it is found to rest upon the postulate that the gift of 
Christ is a necessary compensation to the human race for the 
evils brought upon it for the sin of Adam. It is admitted that 



224 PREDESTINATION. 

the sin of Adam was the cause of his whole race becoming 
sinners, and that every one of his descendants comes into the 
world with a nature so far depraved as to be morally incapable 
of loving God and disposed to evil. But they maintain that 
men are by nature in the first instance not responsible for their 
moral condition, since it comes upon them each at his birth, 
antecedent to all personal action They hold, therefore, that 
man can not be punished for original sin, nor could any man 
ever be held responsible for any act of disobedience springing 
as an inevitable consequence out of that original depravity, 
if God had not through Christ provided a remedy, giving to 
each man gracious ability to do all that is required of him as 
the condition of his salvation. This redemption and gracious 
ability to believe and obey God owes to all men, and they are 
necessary to render any man responsible and punishable for his 
sins, since thus alone is he, as far as this class of exercises go, 
endowed with the power of contrary choice. 

Dr. D. D. Whedon, in the " Bibliotheca Sacra," April, 1862, 
p. 257. — " Tt is not then until there is redemptively conferred 
upon man what we call a gracious ability for the right, that 
man can be strictly responsible for the wrong." He says, p. 254, 
that after Adam sinned the only alternatives open to God in con- 
sistency with justice were either, 1st, to send Adam and Eve to 
perdition before they had children, or, 2d, to allow him to prop- 
agate his kind under the antecedent disabilities of sin, and 
provide a redemptive system for all. 

He distinguishes between guilt or moral responsibility for 
character and moral corruption of nature. Under the con- 
ditions of pure nature, he teaches that only Adam and Eve 
were responsible, as well as corrupt, because they, having been 
created morally free, voluntarily made themselves vile by their 
own act. On the other hand their descendants are all morally 
polluted and spiritually dead, because they inherit corrupt na- 
tures from Adam; but they are not guilty, neither responsible 
for their birth sin nor for any of its consequences, because it 
was determined inevitably by an act not their own. In the 
actual state of things consequent to the gift of Christ every 
man is responsible because every man has sufficient grace. 

Hence it follows — 1st. That the provision of redemption was 
not a work of infinite free grace, but a mere act of justice in 
compensation for evils brought upon our nature by Adam. 
2d. That this is owed equally to each and every man with- 
out exception. "I reject," says John Wesley, " Methodist Doc. 
Tracts," pp. 25, 26, "the assertion that God might justly have 
passed by me and all men, as a bold, precarious assertion, 
utterly unsupported by Holy Scripture." 3d. It follows also 



SALVATION IS OF GRACE. 225 

that the gracious help of the Holy Ghost is just as necessary 
to render men responsible sinners as to bring them to salva- 
tion. 4th. It follows that grace sends men to hell, as well as 
takes them to heaven, and that it has done far more of the 
former than of the latter work. 

30. Show that their position here is absolutely inconsistent with 
what the Scriptures and the entire Christian Church teach of the 
nature and necessity of the Satisfaction made to divine justice by 
Christ. 

It will be shown under Chap. XXV., that the Scriptures 
teach, the entire Church being witness, that in order to the 
salvation of man, a full satisfaction to the inalienable principle 
of justice essential to the Divine nature was absolutely necessary. 
So that if God's justice is not satisfied, grace can not be shown 
to any man. This would be absurd if men were not antece- 
dently responsible for the sins for which it is necessary that they 
should make satisfaction. What is the sense of a "Redemptively 
conferred gracious ability" respecting parties who have forfeited 
nothing because they are responsible for nothing? In their case 
is not both "redemption" and "grace" an impertinence? 

31. Prove from Scripture that salvation is of grace. 

Grace is free, undeserved favor showed to the undeserving. 
If redemption is a debt owed to all men, or if it be a compen- 
sation prerequisite to their accountability, then it can not be a 
gratuity, and the gift of Christ can not be an eminent expres- 
sion of God's free favor and love. It can only be an expression 
of his rectitude. 

But the Scriptures declare that the gift of Christ is an un- 
paralleled expression of free love, and that salvation is of grace. 
Lam. iii. 22; John iii. 16; Eom. iii. 24; xi. 5, 6; 1 Cor. iv. 7; 
xv. 10; Eph. i. 5, 6; ii. 4-10, etc. And every true Christian 
recognizes the essential graciousness of salvation as an insep- 
arable element of his experience. Hence the doxologies of 
heaven.— 1 Cor. yi. 19, 20; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19; Kev. v. 8-14. 

But if salvation is of grace, then it is obviously consistent 
with God's justice for him to save all, many, few, or none, just 
as he pleases. 

32. Shoiv that the objection that unconditional election is incon- 
sistent tuith the justice of God is absurd and antichristian. 

J.ustice necessarily holds all sinners alike destitute of all 

claims upon God's favor. It is unjust to justify the unjust. It 

would be inconsistent with righteousness for a sinful man to 

claim, or for God to grant, salvation to anv one as his due. 

15 



226 PREDES TINA TION. 

Otherwise the condemning sentence of conscience is denied, 
and the cross of Christ made of none effect. On the very 
grounds of justice itself, therefore, salvation must be of grace, 
and it must rest upon the sovereign option of God himself 
whether he provides salvation for few, many, or for none. The 
salvation of none is consistent with justice, or the sacrifice of 
Christ was a payment of debt not a grace. And the salvation 
of one undeserving sinner obviously can lay no foundation upon 
which the salvation of another can be demanded as a right. 

33. State and refute the objection that our doctrine is inconsistent 
with the rectitude of God as an impartial ruler. 

Arminians often argue that reason teaches us to expect the 
great omnipotent Creator and Sovereign of all men to be im- 
partial in his treatment of individuals — to extend the same 
essential advantages and conditions of salvation to all alike. 
They argue also that this fair presumption of reason is reaf- 
firmed in the Scriptures, which declare that God is "no re- 
specter of persons." — Acts x. 34, and 1 Pet. i. 17. In the first- 
named passage this applies simply to the application of the 
gospel to Gentiles as well as Jews. In the second passage it 
is affirmed that in the judgment of human works God is abso- 
lutely impartial. The question as to election, however, is as 
to grace not as to judgment pronounced on works, and the 
Scriptures nowhere say that God is impartial in the commu- 
nication of his grace. 

On the other hand, the presumptions of reason and the texts 
of Scripture must be interpreted in a sense consistent with the 
palpable facts of human history and of God's daily providential 
dispensations. If it is unjust in principle for God to be partial 
in his distributions of spiritual good, it can be no less unjust 
for him to be partial in his distribution of temporal good. As 
a matter of fact, however, we. find that God in the exercise of 
his absolute sovereignty makes the greatest possible distinc- 
tions among men from birth, and independently of their own 
merits in the allotments both of temporal good and of the es- 
sential means of salvation. One child is born to health, honor, 
wealth, to the possession of a susceptible heart and conscience, 
and to all the best means of grace as his secure inheritance. 
Many others are born to disease, shame, poverty, an obtuse 
conscience and hardened heart, and absolute heathenish dark- 
ness and ignorance of Christ. If God may not be partial to 
individuals, why may he be partial to nations, and how can 
his dealings with heathen nations and the children of the 
abandoned classes in the nominally Christian cities be ac- 
counted for? 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 227 

Archbishop "Whately gives this excellent word of warning 
to his Arminian friends: "I would suggest a caution relative 
to a class of objections frequently urged against Calvinists 
drawn from the moral attributes of God. We should be very 
cautious how we employ such weapons as may recoil upon 
ourselves. It is a frightful but undeniable truth that multi- 
tudes, even in Christian countries, are born and brought up in 
such circumstances as afford them no probable, even no pos- 
sible, chance of obtaining a knowledge of religious truths, or 
a habit of moral conduct, but are even trained from infancy in 
superstitious error and gross depravity. Why this should be 
permitted neither Calvinist nor Arminian can explain; nay, 
why the Almighty does not cause to die in the cradle every 
infant whose future wickedness and misery, if suffered to grow 
up, he foresees, is what no system of religion, natural or re- 
vealed, will enable us satisfactorily to account for." — " Essays 
on some of the Difficulties of St. Paul." Essay 3d, on Election. 

34. Refute, the objection draivnfrom such passages as 1 Tim. ii. 4. 

"Who will (BsXei) all men to be saved and to come unto the 
knowledge of the truth." 

The word Qeleiv has two senses — (a) to be inclined to, to 
desire; (li) to purpose, to icill, In such connections as the above 
it is evident that it can not mean that God purposes the salva- 
tion of all, because (a) all are not saved, and none of God's 
purposes fail, and (b) because it is affirmed that he iciUs all to 
"come to the knowledge of the truth" in the same sense that 
he wills all to be saved — yet he has left the vast majority of 
men to be born and to live and to die, irrespective of their 
own agency, in heathenish darkness. 

Such passages simply assert the essential benevolence of 
God. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He 
does take great pleasure in the salvation of men. Yet as a 
matter of fact, in perfect consistency with his benevolence, for 
reasons sufficient, though not revealed to us, he has provided 
no redemption for lost angels, and no efficacious grace for the 
non-elect among mankind. These passages simply assert that, 
if it were not for these reasons, it would be agreeable to his 
benevolent nature that all men should be saved. 

35. Show that our doctrine does not discourage the use of means. 

It is objected that if God from eternity has determined that 
one man is to be converted and saved and another is to be left 
to perish in his sins, there is no room left for the use of means. 
As John Wesley, in "Methodist Doc. Tracts," falsely represents 



228 PREDESTINATION. 

the doctrine of Toplady, " There are suppose twenty men, ten 
are ordained to be saved do what they may, and ten are or- 
dained to be damned do what they can." This is an absurd as 
well as wicked caricature of the doctrine. 

1st. The decree of election does not secure salvation without 
faith and holiness, but salvation through faith and holiness, the 
means being just as much decreed as the end. The Calvin- 
ist believes, as well as the Arminian, that every man who does 
evil will be damned, elect or non-elect. 

2d. The doctrine of election does not presume that God con- 
strains men inconsistently with their freedom. The non-elect 
are simply let alone, to do as their own evil hearts prompt. 
The elect are made willing in the day of God's power. God 
works in them to will as Avell as to do of his good pleasure. 
To be made willing takes away no man's liberty. 

3d. The decree of election only makes the repentance and 
faith of the elect certain. But the antecedent certainty of a 
free act is not inconsistent with its freedom, otherwise the 
certain foreknowledge of a free act would be impossible. The 
decree of election does not cause the faith, and it does not 
interfere with the agent in acting, and certainly it does not 
supersede the absolute necessity of it. 

36. How far is assurance of our election possible, and on what 
grounds does such assurance rest ? 

An unwavering and certain assurance of the fact of our elec- 
tion is possible in this life, for whom God predestinates them 
he also calls, and whom he calls he justifies, and we know that 
whom he justifies, he also sanctifies. Thus the fruits of the 
Spirit prove sanctification, and sanctification proves effectual 
calling, and effectual calling election. — See 2 Pet. i. 5-10; 1 
John ii. 3. 

Besides this evidence of our own gracious states and acts, 
we have the Spirit of adoption, who witnesseth with our spirits 
and seals us. — Rom. viii. 16, 17; Eph. iv. 30. 

In confirmation of this we have the example of the apostles 
(2 Tim. i. 12) and of many Christians. 

37. Hoiv does this doctrine consist with the general benevolence 
of God? 

The only difficulty at this point is to reconcile the general 
benevolence of God with the fact that he, being infinitely wise 
and powerful, should have admitted a system involving the sin, 
final impenitence, and consequent damnation of any. But this 
difficulty presses equally upon both systems. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 229 

The facts prove that God's general benevolence is not incon- 
sistent with his allowing some to be damned for their sins. 
This is all that reprobation means. Gratuitous election, or the 
positive choice of some does not rest upon God's general benev- 
olence, but upon his special love to his own. — John xvii. 6, 23; 
Kom. ix. 11-13; 1 Thess. v. 9. 

38. How does this doctrine consist with the general gospel offer ? 

In the general offers of the gospel God exhibits a salvation 
sufficient for and exactly adapted to all, and sincerely offered 
to every one without exception, and he unfolds all the motives 
of duty, hope, fear, etc., which ought to induce every one to 
accept it, solemnly promising that whosoever comes in no wise 
shall be cast out. Nothing but a sinful unwillingness can pre- 
vent any one who hears the gospel from receiving and enjoy- 

The gospel is for all, election is a special grace in addition 
to that offer. The non-elect may come if they will. The elect 
will come. The decree of election puts no barrier before men 
preventing them from accepting the gospel offer. Any man, 
elect or non-elect, will be saved if he accepts. The non-elect 
are left to act as they are freely determined by their own 
hearts. 

There is just as great an apparent difficulty in reconciling 
God's certain foreknowledge of the final impenitence of the 
great majority of those to whom he offers and upon whom he 
presses, by every argument, his love with the fact of that offer; 
especially when we reflect that he foresees that his offers will 
certainly increase their guilt and misery. 

39. Hoiv can the doctrine of reprobation be reconciled luith the 
holiness of God ? 

Eeprobation leaves men in sin, and thus leads to the increase 
of sin throughout eternity. How then can God, in consistency 
with his holiness, form a purpose the designed effect of which 
is to leave men in sin, and thus lead inevitably to the increase 
of sin. 

But it is acknowledged by Arminians as well as Calvinists, 
that God did create the human race in spite of his certain fore- 
knowledge that sin would be largely occasioned thereby, and 
he did create individual men in spite of his certain foreknowl- 
edge that these very men would continue eternally to sin. The 
real difficulty lies in the insoluble problem of the permission of 
evil. Why is the existence of evil tolerated in the universe 
of an infinitely wise, righteous, merciful, and powerful God ? 



230 PREDESTINA TION. 

The Arminians are as little able to answer that question as the 
Calvinist. 

40. What is the practical bearing of this doctrine on Christian 
experience and conduct ? 

It must be remembered, 1st. That this truth is not inconsist- 
ent with, but is part of, the same gracious system with the 
equally certain principles of the moral liberty and responsi- 
bility of man, and the free offers of the gospel to all. 2d. That 
the sole rule of our duty is the commands, threatenings, and 
promises of God clearly expressed in the gospel, and not this 
decree of election, which he never reveals except in its conse- 
quents of effectual calling, faith, and holy living. 

When thus held, the doctrine of predestination — 

1st. Exalts the majesty and absolute sovereignty of God, 
while it illustrates the riches of his free grace and his just dis- 
pleasure with sin. 

2d. It enforces upon us the essential truth that salvation is 
entirely of grace. That no one can either complain, if passed 
over, or boast himself, if saved. 

3d. It brings the inquirer to absolute self-despair, and the 
cordial embrace of the free offer of Christ. 

4th. In the case of the believer, who has the witness in him- 
self, this doctrine at once deepens his humility, and elevates 
his confidence to the full assurance of hope. 

41. State the true nature of the question discussed by theologians 
concerning the order of the divine decrees. 

As we believe that the Decree of God is one single, eternal 
intention, there can not be an order of succession in his pur- 
poses either (a) in time, as if one purpose actually preceded 
the other, or (b) in distinct deliberation or option on the part 
of God. The whole is one choice. Yet in willing the entire 
system God, of course, comprehended all the parts of the system 
willed in their several successions and relations. In like man- 
ner as a man by one act of mind recognizes a complicated 
machine with which he is familiar, and in the same act discrim- 
inates accurately the several parts, and comprehends their unity 
and relation in the system, and the design of the whole. — Dr. 
Charles Hodge's '"Lectures." The question, therefore, as to the 
Order of the Decrees is not a question as to the order of acts in 
God decreeing, but it is a question as to the true relation sus- 
tained by the several parts of the system which he decrees to 
one another. That is, What relation between Creation, Predes- 
tination, and Redemption did the one eternal purpose of God 



THE ORDER OF THE DIVINE DECREES. 231 

establish ? "What do the Scriptures teach as to the purpose of 
God in giving his Son, and as to the object and ground of elec- 
tion ? The ground and object of election has been fully con- 
sidered above. The design of God in the gift of Christ will be 
fully considered under Division IV. of Chapter XXV. 

42. What is the Arminian theory as to tlie order of the decrees 
relating to the human race? 

1st. The decree to create man. 2d. Man, as a moral agent, 
being fallible, and his will being essentially contingent, and 
his sin therefore being impreventible, God, foreseeing that man 
would certainly fall into the condemnation and pollution of sin, 
decreed to provide a free salvation through Christ for all men, 
and to provide sufficient means for the effectual application of 
that salvation to the case of all. 3d. He decreed absolutely 
that all believers in Christ should be saved, and all unbeliev- 
ers reprobated for their sins. 4th. Foreseeing that certain 
individuals would repent and believe, and that certain other 
individuals would continue impenitent to the last, God from 
eternity elected to eternal life those whose faith he foresaw, 
on the condition of their faith, and reprobated those whom 
he foresaw would continue impenitent on the condition of that 
impenitence. 

43. What is the vieiv of this subject entertained by the French 
Protestant theologians, Camero, Amyraut, and others ? 

These theological professors at Saumur, during the second 
quarter of the seventeenth century, taught that God — 1st. De- 
creed to create man. 2d. To permit man to fall. 3d. To pro- 
vide, in the mediation of Christ, salvation for all men. 4th. But, 
foreseeing that if men were left to themselves none would re- 
pent and believe, therefore he sovereignly elected some to 
whom he decreed to give the necessary graces of repentance 
and faith. 

44. What is tlve infra-lapsarian view of predestination? 

The infra-lapsarian (infra lapsuni) theory of predestination, 
or the decree of predestination, viewed as subsequent in pur- 
poss to the decree permitting man to fall, represents man as 
created and fallen as the object of election. The order of the 
decrees then stand thus : 1st. The decree to create man. 2d. To 
permit man to fall. 3d. The decree to elect certain men, out of 
the mass of the fallen and justly condemned race, to eternal life, 
and to pass others by, leaving them to the just consequences of 
their sins. 4th. The decree to provide salvation for the elect. 



232 PREDESTINA TION. 

This is the common view of the Reformed Churches, confirmed 

ALIKE BY THE SyNOD OF DoRT AND THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY. 

45. What is the supra-lapsarian theory of predestination ? 

The term supra-lapsarian {supra lapsum) designates that view 
of the various provisions of the divine decree in their logical 
relations which supposes that the ultimate end which God pro- 
posed to himself was his own glory in the salvation of some 
men and in the damnation of others, and that, as a means to 
that end, he decreed to create man, and to permit him to fall. 
According to this view, man simply as creatible, and fallible, 
and not as actually created or fallen, is the object of election 
and reprobation. The order of the decrees would then be — 
1st. Of all possible men, God first decreed the salvation of 
some and the damnation of others, for the end of his own 
glory. 2d. He decreed, as a means to that end, to create those 
already elected or reprobated. 3d. He decreed to permit them 
to fall. 4th. He decreed to provide a salvation for the elect. 
This view was held by Beza, the successor of Calvin in Geneva, 
and by Gomarus, the great opponent of Arminius. 

46. State the respective points of agreement and of difference 
between these several schemes. 

1st. The Arminian as compared with the Calvinistic scheme. 

With the Arminian the decree of redemption precedes the 
decree of election, which is conditioned upon the foreseen faith 
of the individual. 

With the Calvinist, on the other hand, the decree of election 
precedes the decree of redemption, and the decree of election is 
conditioned upon the simple good pleasure of God alone. 

2d. The French or Salmurian as compared with the legiti- 
mate view of the Eeformed Churches and with the Arminian 
view. The French view agrees with the Reformed and differs 
from the Arminian view in making the sovereign good pleasure 
of God the sole ground of election ; while it differs from the 
Reformed and agrees with the Arminian in making the decree 
of redemption precede the decree of election. 

3d. The supra-lapsarian scheme as compared with the infra- 
lapsarian view prevalent among the Reformed Churches. The 
supra-lapsarian scheme makes the decree to elect some and 
reprobate others, precede the decree to create and to permit to 
fail. The infra-lapsarian view makes the decree of election 
come after the decree to create and permit to fall. The supra- 
lapsarian view regards man not as created and fallen, but sim- 
ply as creatible, the object of election and reprobation. The 



THE ORDER OF THE DIVINE DECREES. 233 

infra-lapsarian view makes man as already created and fallen 
the only object of those decrees. 

47. State the arguments against the supra-lapsarian scheme. 

This scheme is unquestionably the most logical of all. It 
is postulated upon the principle, that what is last in execution 
is first in intention, which undoubtedly holds true in all spheres 
comprehended in human experience. Hence it is argued that 
if the final result of the whole matter is the glorification of 
God in the salvation of the elect and the perdition of the non- 
elect, it must have been the deliberate purpose of God from the 
beginning. But the case is too high and too vast for the a 
'priori application and enforcement of the ordinary rules of 
human judgment; we can here only know in virtue of and 
within the limits of a positive revelation. 

The objections against this scheme are — 

1st. Man creatible is a nonentity. He could not have been 
loved or chosen unless considered as created. 

2d. The whole language of Scripture upon this subject im- 
plies that the " elect " are chosen as the objects of eternal love, 
not from the number of creatible, but from the mass of actually 
sinful men. — John xv. 19; Rom. xi. 5, 7. 

3d. The Scriptures declare that the elect are chosen to sanc- 
tification, and to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. They 
must therefore have been regarded when chosen as guilty and 
defiled by sin. — 1 Pet. i. 2 ; Eph. i. 4-6. 

4th. Predestination includes reprobation. This view repre- 
sents God as reprobating the non-elect by a sovereign act, with- 
out any respect to their sins, simply for his own glory. This 
appears to be inconsistent with the divine righteousness, as 
well as with the teaching of Scripture. The non-elect are " or- 
dained to dishonor and wrath for their sins, to the praise of his 
glorious justice. — " Conf. Faith," ch. 3, sec. 3-7, "L. Cat.," ques- 
tion 13; "S. Cat.," question 20. 

48. Shoio that a correct exegesis of Eph. iii. 9, 10, does not sup- 
port the snpra-lapsarian view. 

This passage is claimed as a direct affirmation of the supra- 
lapsarian theory. If the 'iva, introducing the tenth verse, refers 
to the immediately preceding clause, then the passage teaches 
that God created all things in order that his manifold wisdom 
might be displayed by the church to the angels. It is evident, 
however, that iva, refers to the preceding phrase, in which 
Paul declares that he was ordained to preach the gospel to the 
Gentiles, and to enlighten all men as to the mystery of redemp- 



2 34 PREDESTINA TION. 

tion. All this lie was commissioned to do, in order that God's 
glory might be displayed, etc. — See " Hodge on Ephesians." 

49. State the arguments against the French scheme. 

1st. It is not consistent with the fact that God's purposes 
are one. The scheme is that God in one eternal act determined 
to provide the objective conditions of salvation (redemption 
through the blood of Christ), for all, and to provide the sub- 
jective conditions of salvation (efficacious grace) only for some. 
This is in reality an attempt to weld together Arminianism and 
Calvinism. 2d. The Scriptures declare that the purpose of 
Christ's coming was to execute the purpose of election. He 
came to give eternal life to as many as the Father has given 
him. John xvii. 2, 9; x. 15. Redemption therefore can not 
precede election. 3d. The true doctrine of the Atonement (see 
Chapter XXV.) is that Christ did not come to make salvation 
possible, but to effect it for all for whom he died. The Atone- 
ment secures remission of sin, and faith, and repentance, and 
all the fruits of the Spirit. Therefore all who are redeemed 
repent and believe. 

50. In what sense clo the Lutherans 'teach that Christ is the 
ground of election ? 

They hold that God elected his own people to eternal life 
for Christ's sake. They appeal to Eph. i. 4, " According as he 
liath chosen us in him [Christ] before the foundation of the 
world." This view may evidently be construed either with the 
Arminian or the French theory of the decrees above stated, 
i. e., we were chosen in Christ for his sake, either as we were 
foreseen to be in him through faith, or because God, having 
provided through Christ salvation for all men, would, by the 
election of certain individuals, secure at least in their case the 
successful effect of Christ's death. 

This view, of course, is rebutted by the same arguments 
which we urge against the theories above mentioned. We are 
said to be chosen "in him," not for Christ's sake, but because 
the eternal covenant of grace includes all the elect under the 
headship of Christ. The love of God is everywhere represented 
as the ground of the gift of Christ, not the work of Christ the 
ground of the love of God. — John iii. 16; 1 John iv. 10. 

Different Views of the Churches. 

The Lutheran View. — " That which first of all should be accurately 
observed, is the difference between foreknowledge and predestination or 
the eternal election of God. For the ' Foreknowledge of God ' is nothing 
more than that God knew all things before they existed This 



AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS. 235 

foreknowledge of God pertains alike to good and to bad men, but it is 
not consequently the cause of evil, nor the cause of sin, which impels 
man to crime. For sin originates from the devil and from the depraved 
and wicked will of man. Neither is this foreknowledge of God the cause 
that men perish; for that they ought to charge upon themselves; but the 
foreknowledge of God disposes evil, and sets bounds to it, determining 
whither it shall go, and how long it shall last, so that, although it be in 
itself evil, it conspires to the salvation of God's elect. 

"On the other hand, 'Predestination,' or the eternal election of 
God, pertains only to the good and chosen sons of God, and it is the 
cause of their salvation. For it procures their salvation, and disposes 
to those things which pertain to it. Oar salvation is so founded upon 
this predestination that the gates of hell shall never be able to overturn 
it. This predestination of God is not to be sought in the secret council 
of God, but in the word of God, in which it is revealed. For the word 
of God leads us to Christ, that is that book of life in which all are in- 
scribed and elect who attain to eternal salvation. For so it is written 
(Eph. i. 4) he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. . . . 
The word of God, the 'book of life' offers Christ to us, and this is 
opened and developed to us through the preaching of the gospel, as it is 
written (Rom. viii. 30) whom he chose, them he called. In Christ there- 
fore the eternal election of the Father is to be sought. He in his eter- 
nal counsel has decreed that, except those who know his Son Jesus Christ, 
and truly believe on him, none shall be saved." — "Formula Concordioz" 
Ease Collect., pp. 617-619. 

John Gerhard (1582-1637), Loci II. , 86 B.— "We say that all those, 
and those alone, are elected from eternity by God to salvation, whom he 
foresaw would believe in Christ the redeemer through the efficacy of the 
Holy Spirit, and the ministry of the gospel, and should persevere in 
faith an til the end of life. " 

The Doctrine or the Reformed Churches. — " Thirty-Nine Articles 
of the Church of England.'" Article XVII. — See above, Chap. VII. 

" Westminster Confession of Faith,'" Chap. iii. — "The rest of mankind, 
God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, 
whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory 
of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them 
to dishonor and wrath for their sins, and to the praise of his glorious jus- 
tice."— " Conf. Faith," ch. iii., § 7. 

" Canons of Synod of Dor t," Cap. I., $ 7. — "But election is the immu- 
table purpose of God, by which, before the foundations of the world 
were laid, he chose, out of the whole human race, fallen by their own 
fault from their primeval integrity into sin and destruction, according 
to the most free good pleasure of his own will, and of mere grace, a 
certain number of men, neither better nor worthier than others, but 
lying in the same misery with the rest, to salvation in Christ, whom he 
had ever from eternity constituted Mediator and Head of all the elect, 

and the foundation of salvation g 9. This same election is 

not made from any foreseen faith, obedience of faith, holiness, or any 
other good quality or disposition, as a prerequisite cause or condition 
in the man who should be elected, but unto faith, and unto obedience of 
faith, and holiness. And truly election is the fountain of every saving 
benefit; whence faith, holiness, and other salutary gifts, and, finally, eter- 
nal life itself, flow as its fruit and effect. \ 15. Moreover, holy Scripture 
doth illustrate and commend to us this eternal and free grace of our 
election, in this more especially, that it doth also testify all men not to 



236 PREDESTINA TION. 

be elected, but that some are non-elect, or passed by in the eternal elec- 
tion of God, whom truly God, from most free, just, irreprehensible and 
immutable good pleasure, decreed to live in the common misery, into 
which they had, by their own fault, cast themselves, and not to bestow 
upon them living faith and the grace of conversion." 

Eemonsteants. — " Remonstrantia," etc., five articles prepared by the 
Dutch advocates of universal redemption (1610), Art. I. — "God by an 
immutable decree, before he laid the foundations of the world, ordained 
in Jesus Christ his Son, to save out of the fallen human race, exposed to 
punishment on account of sin, those in Christ, on account of Christ, and 
through Christ, who by the grace of the Holy Spirit believe his Son, and 
who through the same grace persevere in the obedience of faith to the 
end. And on the other hand (he decreed) to leave in sin and exposed to 
wrath those who are not converted, and are unbelieving, and to condemn 
them as aliens from Christ, according to John iii. 36." 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 

1. What is the origin of the Doctrine of Creation ex nihilo ? 

The prevalency, if not the conception, of the idea of absolute 
creation, or of creation ex nihilo, is to be referred to the influence 
of the inspired word of God. Anterior to revelation there were 
two prevalent causes which prevented the acceptance of this 
idea, (a.) The universally assumed truth of the axiom that 
ex nihilo nihil fit. Hence all theists and atheists alike failed 
to conceive of, or conceiving repudiated, the idea of absolute 
creation as absurd, (b.) The second cause influencing theists 
was the presumed interest of natural theology, in the impossi- 
bility, on that hypothesis, of reconciling the existence of evil 
with the perfections of God. 

2. What views were respectively held by the great theists Plato 
and Aristotle ? 

Plato held that there are two eternal, self-existent principles, 
God and matter, vA.??, which exist co-ordinately in an indivisi- 
ble, unsuccessive eternity; that time and the actual phenomenal 
world which exists in time, are the work of God, who freely 
moulds matter into forms which image his own infinitely perfect 
and eternal ideas. Aristotle also held that God and matter are 
co-ordinately self-existent and eternal; but he differed from 
Plato in regarding God as eternally self-active in organizing 
the world out of matter, and consequently in regarding the uni- 
verse thus organized as eternal as well as the mere matter of 
which it is formed. — "Ancient Phil," W. Archer Butler, Series 
3, Lectures 1 and 2. 

3. What views on this point prevailed among the Gnostics ? 

Some of the Gnostics taught that the universe proceeds 
from God by way of emanation, which was explained as "a 
necessary and gradual unfolding ad extra of the germ of exist- 
ence that lay in God," as radiance proceeds from the sun, etc. 
Most of the Gnostics united with this theory of emanation the 



238 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 

doctrine of dualism, i. e., of the co-ordinate self-existence of two 
independent principles, God and matter (0A??). From God by 
successive emanations proceeded the iEons, the Demimgos, 
Creator of the world, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and 
finally Christ. The material universe springs from self-exist- 
ent matter, intrinsically evil, organized by the Demimgos. All 
souls have emanated from the world of light, but have become 
entangled in matter, hence the historical contest between good 
and evil, which Christ came to settle by giving power to souls 
ultimately to escape from the toils of matter. 

4. What is the view on this subject common to all schemes of 
Pantheism ? 

Pantheists identify God and the universe. God is the abso- 
lute being of which things are the special and transient modes. 
God is the self-existent and persistent principle of all things, 
which by an inherent self-acting law of development is eter- 
nally running through ceaseless cycles of change. 

5. State the true doctrine as to creation. 

The Christian doctrine as to Creation involves the following 
points: 1st. "In the beginning," at some unknown point of de- 
finite commencement in time. 2d. God called all things (that 
is the original principles and causes of all things) into being 
out of nothing. Thus every thing which has or will or can 
exist, exterior to the Godhead, owes its being and substance as 
well as its form to God. 3d. This creative act is an act of free, 
self-determined will. It was not a necessary constitutional act 
analogous to the immanent and eternal acts of the Generation 
of the Son or the Procession of the Holy Spirit. 4th. It was 
not necessary to complete the divine excellence or blessed- 
ness, which were eternal and complete and inseparable from 
the divine essence. But it was done in the exercise of abso- 
lute discretion for infinitely wise reasons. — Dr. Charles Hodge. 

This doctrine is essential to Theism. All opposing theories 
of the origin of the world are essentially Pantheistic or Atheistic. 

6. What distinction is signalized by the terms Creatio prima 
seu immediata, and Creatio secunda seu mediata, and by ichom 
was it introduced ? 

The phrase Creatio prima sen immediata signifies the origi- 
nating act of the divine will whereby he brings, or has brought, 
into being, out of nothing, the principles and elementary es- 
sences of all things. The phrase Creatio secunda seu mediata 
signifies the subsequent act of God in originating different 
forms of things, and especially different species of living beings 



ABSOLUTE CREATION TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE. 239 

out of the already created essences of things. The Christian 
Church holds both. These phrases originated in the writings 
of certain Lutheran theologians of the seventeenth century, 
e. g., Gerhard, Quenstedt, etc. 

7. What is the 'primary signification, and ivliat the biblical 
usage of the word N~ja? 

" 1st. Strictly, To hew, cut out 2d. To form, make, produce 
(whether out of nothing or not). — Gen. i. 1, 21, 27; ii. 3, 4; Isa. 
xliii. 1, 7; xlv. 7; lxv. 18; Ps. Ii. 12; Jer. xxxi. 22; Amos iv. 13. 
Niphal, 1st. To be created. — Gen. ii. 4; v. 2. 2d. To be born. — Ps. 
cii. 19; Ezek. xxi. 35. Piel, 1st. To hew, cut down, e. g., a wood. 
Josh. xvii. 15, 18. 2d. To cut down (with the sword), to Mil. 
Ezek. xxiii. 47. 3d. To form, engrave, mark out. — Ezek. xxi. 24." 
Gesenius' "Lex." 

8. State the direct proof of the truth of this doctrine afforded in 
Scripture. 

1st. Since the idea itself is new, and foreign to all prece- 
dent modes of thought, it could be conveyed in Scripture only 
through the use of old terms, previously bearing a different 
sense, but so employed as to suggest a new meaning. The 
word "bara," however, is the best one the Hebrew language 
afforded to express the idea of absolute making. 

2d. This new idea is inevitably suggested by the way in 
which the term is first used by Moses, when giving account 
from the very commencement of the genesis of the heavens 
and the earth. As a general introduction to the history of the 
formation of the world and its inhabitants, it is declared that 
" In the beginning — in the absolute beginning, God made the 
heavens and the earth." There is not the slightest hint given 
of any previously existing material. In the beginning God made 
the heavens and the earth, after that Chaos existed, for then it 
is said "the earth was without form and void," and the Spirit 
of God brooded over the abyss. 

3d. The same truth is also inevitably suggested in all the 
various modes of expression by which the agency of God in 
originating the world is set forth in Scripture. In no case is 
there the faintest trace of any reference to any pre-existing 
materials or precedent conditions of creation. In every case 
the whole causal agency to which the creation is referred is 
the "Word," the bare "fiat" of Jehovah. — Ps. xxxiii. 6 and 
cxlviii. 5. "By faith we understand that the worlds were 
framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen 
(ra /3XE7tojLieva) were not made of things which do appear {j.irf 
hu cpaivoj-isvoov). — Heb. xi. 3. See Rom. iv. 17; 2 Cor. iv. 6. 



240 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 

9. In ivliat manner is tins doctrine of tlie absolute creation of 
the world by God implied in Scripture ? 

1st. In all those passages that teach that God is an absolute 
Sovereign, and that the creature is absolutely dependent on him, 
"in whom we live and move and have our being." — Acts 
xvii. 28; Neh. ix. 6; Col. i. 16; Eev. iv. 11; Rom. xi. 36; 
1 Cor. viii. 6. 

Now it is evident that if the essences and primordial princi- 
ples of all things are not immediately created by God out of 
nothing, but are eternally self-existent independently of him, 
then he, in his offices of Creator and Providential governor of 
all things, must be conditioned and limited by the pre-existing 
essential properties and powers of those primordial elements. 
In which case God would not be absolute Sovereign, nor the 
things made absolutely dependent upon his will. 

2d. In all those passages which teach that the kosmos, the 
"all things" had a beginning. — Ps. xc. 2; John xvii. 5, 24. 

10. What arguments derived from reason and consciousness, 
and from the elementary constitution of matter, may be adduced in 
proof of absolute creation ? 

1st. This doctrine alone is consistent with the feeling of 
absolute dependence of the creature upon the Creator, which is 
inherent in every heart, and which is inculcated in all the teach- 
ings of the Scriptures. It could not be said that " he upholds 
all things by the word of his power," nor that "we live and 
move and have our being in him," unless he be absolutely the 
Creator as well as the Former of all things. 

2d. It is manifest from the testimony of consciousness: 
(1.) That our souls are distinct individual entities, and not 
parts or particles of God; (2.) that they are not eternal. It 
follows consequently that they were created. And if the crea- 
tion of the spirits of men ex nihilo be once admitted, there 
remains no special difficulty with respect to the absolute crea- 
tion of matter. 

3d. Although the absolute origination of any new existence 
out of nothing is to us confessedly inconceivable, it is not one 
whit more so than the relation of the infinite foreknowledge, or 
foreordination, or providential control of God to the free agency 
of men, nor than many other truths which we are all forced to 
believe. 

4th. After having admitted the necessary self-existence of 
an infinitely wise and powerful personal Spirit, whose exist- 
ence, upon the hypothesis of his possessing the power of abso- 
lute creation, is sufficient to account for all the phenomena of 



SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. 241 

the universe, it is unphilosophical gratuitously to multiply 
causes by supposing the independent, eternal self-existence of 
matter also. 

5th. When the physical philosopher has analyzed matter to 
its ultimate atoms, and determined their essential primary 
properties, he finds in them as strong evidence of a powerful 
antecedent cause, and of a wisely designing mind, as he does 
in the most complex organizations of nature ; for what are the 
ultimate properties of matter but the elementary constituents 
of the universal laws of nature, and the ultimate conditions of 
all phenomena. If design discovered in the constitution of the 
universe as finished proves a divine Former, by equal right 
must the same design discovered in the elementary constitution 
of matter prove a divine Creator. 

Atoms were asserted by Sir John Herschell to have all the 
appearance of "a manufactured article," on account of their 
uniformity. 

"Whether or not the conception of a multitude of beings 
existing from all eternity is in itself self-contradictory, the con- 
ception becomes palpably absurd when we attribute a relation 
of quantitive equality to all those beings. We are then forced 
to look beyond them to some common cause, or common origin, 
to explain why this singular relation of equality exists . . . 
We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties 
when we have admitted that because matter can not be eternal 
and self-existent it must have been created." — Prof. J. Clerk- 
Maxwell in Art. Atom, " Encyclo. Britannica," 9th ed. 

11. State and refute the objection to this doctrine based iqoon 
the axiom, " Ex nihilo nihil fit." 

It is objected that it is an original and self-evident princi- 
ple of reason, that only nothing can come from nothing. We 
answer that this statement is indefinite. If it is meant that no 
new thing, nor any change in a previously existing thing, can 
begin to be without an adequate cause, we answer that it is 
true, but does not apply to the case in hand. Our doctrine is 
not that the universe came into being without an adequate 
cause, but that the essences as well as the forms of all things 
had a beginning in time, and their cause exists only in the will 
of God. The infinite power inherent in a self-existent Spirit is 
precisely the Cause to which Ave refer the absolute origination 
of all things. But if it is meant by the above objection that 
this infinite God has not power to create new entities, then the 
principle is simply false and not self-evident; it bears not one 
of the marks of a valid intuition — neither self-evidence, neces- 
sity, nor universality. 
16 



242 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 

12. State and refute the position of some ivlio maintain on moral 
grounds the self-existence of matter. 

Those among theistic thinkers who have been tempted to 
regard matter as eternal and self-existent, have been influenced 
by the vain hope of explaining thereby the existence of moral 
evil in consistency with the holiness of God. They would refer 
all the phenomena of sin to an essentially evil principle inher- 
ent in matter, and would justify God by maintaining that he 
has done all that in him lay to limit that evil. Now, besides 
the inconsistency of this theory's attempt to vindicate the holi- 
ness of God at the expense of his independence, it proceeds 
upon absurd principles, as appears from the following consid- 
erations: (1.) Moral evil is in its essence an attribute of spirit. 
To refer it to a material origin must logically lead to the 
grossest materialism. (2.) The entire Christian system of relig- 
ion, and the example of Christ, is in opposition to that asceti- 
cism and "neglecting of the body" (Col. ii. 23), which neces- 
sarily springs from the view that matter is the ground of sin. 
(3.) When God created the material universe he pronounced 
his works "very good." (4.) The second Person of the holy 
Trinity assumed a real material body into personal union with 
himself. (5.) The material creation, now "made subject to 
vanity " through man's sin, is to be renovated and made the 
temple in which the God-man shall dwell forever. — See below, 
Chap. XXXIX., Question 17. (6.) The work of Christ in deliv- 
ering his people from their sin does not contemplate the renun- 
ciation of the material part of our natures, but our bodies, which 
are now "the members of Christ," and the "temples of the Holy 
Ghost," are at the resurrection to be transformed into the like- 
ness of his glorified body. Yet nothing could be more absurd 
than to argue that the dajjua TtvevuaTiuov is not as literally 
material as the present 6Suaipvxix6v. (7.) If the cause of evil 
is essentially inherent in matter, and if its past developments 
have occurred in spite of God's efforts to limit it, what certain 
ground of confidence can any of us have for the future. 

13. Prove that the icork of creation is in Scripture attributed 
to God absolutely, i. e., to each of the three persons of the Trinity 
co-ordinately, and not to either as his special personal function, 

1st. To the Godhead absolutely. — Gen. i. 1, 26. 2d. To the 
Father, 1 Cor. viii. 6. 3d. To the Son. — John i. 3; Col. i. 16, 17. 
4th. To the Holy Spirit. — Gen. i. 2; Job xxvi. 13; Ps. civ. 30. 

14. How can it be proved that no creature can create ? 

1st. From the nature of the work. It appears to us that 



THE CHIEF END OF GOD IN CREATION. 243 

the work of absolute creation ex nihilo is an infinite exercise of 
power. It is to us inconceivable because infinite, and it can 
belong, therefore, only to that Being who, for the same reason, 
is incomprehensible. 2d. The Scriptures distinguish Jehovah 
from all creatures, and from false gods, and establish his sover- 
eignty and rights as the true God by the fact that he is the 
Creator, Is. xxxvii. 16; xl. 12, 13; liv. 5; Ps. xcvi. 5; Jer. x. 11, 12. 
3d. If it were admitted that a creature could create, then the 
works of creation would never avail to lead the creature to an 
infallible knowledge that his creator was the eternal and self- 
existent God. 

15. Why is it important for as to know, if such hioidedge be 
possible, ivhat Gods chief end in creation was ? 

This is not a question of vain curiosity. It is evident, since 
God is eternal, immutable, and of absolutely perfect intelli- 
gence, that the great end or ultimate purpose for which he 
at the beginning created all things must have been kept in 
view unchangeably in all his works, and so all his works must 
be more directly or remotely a means to that end. Now our 
minds are so constituted that we can understand a system only 
when we understand its ultimate purpose or end. Thus we can 
comprehend the parts of a watch or steam engine, and their 
relations and functions, only after we understand the end or 
purpose which the entire watch or engine was intended to 
serve. And although God has hid from us many of his subor- 
dinate purposes, we believe that he has revealed to us that great 
ultimate design, without a glimpse of which the true character 
of his general administration never could be in any degree com- 
prehended. None can deny that if he has revealed his ultimate 
purpose in creation, that it must be a matter to us of the very 
highest importance. 

It is self-evident that ice can not rise to so high a generali- 
zation as this by any process of induction from what Ave know 
or can know of his works. Our conclusion on this subject must 
therefore be drawn, in the first instance at least, entirely from 
what we know of God's attributes and from the explicit teach- 
ings of his word. 

16. What is the meaning of the term Theodicy, and by whom 
was this department of speculative theology in the first instance 
formally explored ? 

The term Theodicy (0£o? diurf) signifies a speculative justifi- 
cation of the ways of God towards the human race, especially 
as respects the origin of evil, and the moral government of the 
world. It was first exalted into a department of theological 



244 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 

science by the great German philosopher Leibnitz, in his great 
work entitled "Theodicy, or the Goodness of God, the Liberty 
of Man, and the Origin of Evil," a. d. 1710. 

17. What view as to the end of God in creation did Leibnitz 
advocate, and by whom has he beenfolloiued? 

Leibnitz held that all moral excellence can be resolved into 
benevolence, and that the grand, all-comprehending purpose of 
God in the creation of the universe, arid in his preservation and 
government thereof, is the promotion of the happiness of his 
creatures. Hence he concludes that God has chosen the best 
possible system to attain that end in the largest possible degree. 
This is the system of Optimism. 

This view has prevailed largely among the New England 
theologians, in connection with the prevalent theory which 
regards all virtue as consisting in disinterested benevolence. 

The objections to this view are — 1st. All virtue does not 
consist in disinterested benevolence. — See above, Chapter VIII., 
Ques. 61. And happiness is not the highest good. 2d. It sub- 
ordinates the Creator to the creature, the greater to the less, as 
the means to an end. When God from eternity formed the 
purpose to create, no creatures existed to be made happy or 
miserable. The motive to create therefore could not have orig- 
inated in the non-existent, and could have its origin and object 
only in the divine being himself. 3d. The Scriptures (see next 
question) never either directly or indirectly intimate that any 
thing in the creature is the chief end of God, nor do they ever 
propose any personal or public good of the creature as the chief 
end of the creature himself. 

18. State the true view and quote the statements of the Confession 
of Faith? 

The true view is that the great end of God in creation was 
his own glory. Glory is manifested excellence. The excellence 
of his attributes are manifested by their exercise. This end 
therefore Avas not the increase either of his excellence or bless- 
edness, but their manifestation ad extra. 

"It pleased God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the 
manifestation of the glory of his eternal poicer, tvisdom, and good- 
ness, in the beginning to create or make of nothing the world, 
and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space 
of six days, and all very good." — " Conf. Faith," Ch. iv., § 1. 
The same is affirmed to be the chief end of God in all his pur- 
poses and works of Providence and Kedemption. — Ch. iii. § 3, 



THE MOSAIC RECORD OF CREATION. 245 

5, 7, and Ch. v. § 1; Ch. vi. § 1; Ch. xxxiii. § 2; "Larger Cat," 
Qs. 12 and 18; " S. Cat.," Qs. 7. 

19. State from reason and Scripture the arguments ivhich sus- 
tain this view. 

1st. Since God formed the purpose to create before any crea- 
ture existed, it is evident that the motive to create must have 
its source and object in the pre-existing Creator and not in 
the non-existing creature. The absolute Creator can not be 
subordinated to nor conditioned upon the finite and depend- 
ent creature. 

2d. Since God himself is infinitely worthier than the sum 
of all creatures, it follows that the manifestation of his own 
excellence is infinitely a higher and worthier end than the hap- 
piness of the creatures, indeed the highest and worthiest end 
conceivable. 

3d. Nothing can so exalt and bless the creature as his being 
made thus the instrument and the witness of the infinite Crea- 
tor's glory, hence the proposing that glory as the " chief end " 
of the creation is the best security for the creature's advance 
in excellence and blessedness. 

4th. The Scriptures explicitly assert that this is the chief 
end of God in creation (Col. i. 16 ; Prov. xvi. 4), and of things 
as created. — Rev. iv. 11; Rom. xi. 36. 

5th. They teach that the same is the chief end of God in 
his eternal decrees. — Eph. i. 5, 6, 12. 

6th. Also of God's providential and gracious governing and 
disposing of his creatures. — Rom. ix. 17, 22, 23; Eph. iii. 10. 

7th. It is made the duty of all moral agents to adopt 
the same as their personal end in all things. — 1 Cor. x. 31 ; 1 
Pet. iv. 11. 

20. What is the present attitude of Geological science in relation 
to the Mosaic Record of creation ? 

The results of modern geological science clearly establish 
the conclusions — (a.) That the elementary materials of which 
the world is composed existed an indefinitely great number of 
ages ago. (?>.) That the world has been providentially brought 
to its present state by a gradual progression, through many 
widely contrasted physical conditions, and through long inter- 
vals of time, (c.) That it has successively been inhabited by 
many different orders of organized beings, each in turn adapted 
to the physical conditions of the globe in its successive stages, 
and generally marked in each stage by an advancing scale of 
organization, from the more elementary to the more complex 
and more perfect forms, (d.) That man completes the pyramid 



246 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 

of creation, the most perfect, and the last formed of all the in- 
habitants of the world. The only difficulty in adjusting these 
results with the Mosaic Record of creation is found in matters 
of detail, in which the true sense of the inspired record is ob- 
scure, and the conclusions of the science are immature. There- 
fore all such detailed adjustments as that attempted by Hugh 
Miller in his "Testimony of the Rocks" have failed. As to 
the relation of the findings of science with respect to the an- 
tiquity of man to Biblical Chronology see below, Chapter XVI. 
In general, however, there is a most remarkable agreement be- 
tween the Mosaic Record and the results of Geology as to the 
following principal points. The Record agrees with the science 
in teaching — (a.) The creation of the elements in the remote 
past, (b.) The intermediate existence of chaos, (c.) The ad- 
vance of the earth through various changes to its present 
physical condition, (d.) The successive creations of different 
genera and species of organized beings — the vegetable before 
the animal — the lower forms before the higher forms — in adap- 
tation to the improving condition of the earth — and man last 
of all. 

If we remember when and where and for what purpose this 
Record was produced, and compare it with all other ancient or 
mediaeval cosmogonies, this wonderful agreement with the last 
results of modern science will be felt to contribute essentially 
to the evidences of its divine origin. It is certainly, even 
when read subject to the most searching modern criticism, 
seen to be amply sufficient for the end intended, as a general 
introduction to the history of Redemption, which although 
rooted in creation is henceforward carried on as a system of 
supernatural revelations and influences. 

■ 21. State the several principles which should always be borne 
in mind in considering questions involving an apparent conflict of 
science and revelation. 

1st. God's works and God's word are equally revelations 
from him. They are consequently both alike true, and both 
alike sacred, and to be treated with reverence. It is absolutely 
impossible that when they are both adequately interpreted they 
can come into conflict. Jealousy on either part, is treason to 
the Author and Lord of both. 

2d. Science, or the interpretation of God's works, is there- 
fore a legitimate and obligatory department of human study. 
It has its rights which must be respected, and its duties which 
it must observe. It is the right of every science to pursue the 
investigation of its own branch according to its own legitimate 
methods. We can not require of the chemist that he should 



RELATION OF SCIENCE AND REVELATION. 217 

pursue the methods of the philologist, nor of the geologist that 
he should go to history, either profane or sacred, for his facts. 
It is the duty of the students of every science to keep within 
its province, to recognize the fact that it is only one depart- 
ment of the vast empire of truth, and to respect alike all orders 
of truth, historical and inspired as well as scientific; mental 
and spiritual, as well as material. 

3d. It follows as a practical consequence from the narrow- 
ness of the human faculties, that men confined to particular 
branches of inquiry acquire special habits of thought, and as- 
sociations of ideas peculiar to their line, by which they are apt 
to measure and judge the whole world of truth. Thus the man 
of science misinterprets and then becomes jealous of the theo- 
logian, and the theologian misinterprets and becomes jealous 
of the man of science. This is narrowness, not superior knowl- 
edge; weakness, not strength. 

4th. Science is only the human interpretation of God's works, 
it is always imperfect and makes many mistakes. Biblical in- 
terpreters are also liable to mistakes and should never assert 
the absolute identity of their interpretations of the Bible with 
the mind of God. 

5th. All sciences in their crude condition have been thought 
to be in conflict with Scripture. But as they have approached 
perfection, they have been all found to be perfectly consistent 
with it. Sometimes it is the science which is amended into 
harmony with the views of the theologian. Sometimes it is 
the views of the theologian which are amended into harmony 
with perfected and demonstrated science, e. g., the instance of 
the universal and now grateful acceptance by the church of 
the once abhorred Copernican system. 

6th. In the case of many sciences, as eminently of Geology, 
the time has not yet come to attempt an adjustment between 
their conclusions and revelation. Like contemporaneous his- 
tory in its relation to prophecy, Geology in its relation to the 
Mosaic Kecord of creation is in transitu. Its conclusions are 
not yet mature. When geologists are all agreed among them- 
selves, when all the accessible facts of the science are observed, 
analyzed, and classified, and when Generalization has done its 
perfect work, and when all of its results are finished and finally 
fixed as part of the intellectual heritage of man forever, then 
the adjustment between science and revelation will stand self- 
revealed, and science will be seen to support and illustrate, 
instead of oppose, the written word of God. 

7. There are hence two opposite tendencies which equally 
damage the cause of religion, and manifest the weakness of 
the faith of its professed friends. The first is the weak accept- 



248 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 

ance of every hostile conclusion of scientific speculators as 
certainly true; the constant confession of the inferiority of the 
light of revelation to the light of nature, and of the certainty 
of the conclusions of Biblical exegesis and Christian theology 
to that of the results of modern science; the constant attempt 
to accommodate the interpretation of the Bible, like a nose of 
wax, to every new phase assumed by the current interpretations 
of nature. The second and opjwsite extreme is that of jealously 
suspecting all the findings of science as probable offences 
against the dignity of revelation, and of impatiently attacking 
even those passing phases of imperfect science which for the 
time appear to be inconsistent with our own opinions. Stand- 
ing upon the rock of divine truth, Christians need not fear, 
and can well afford to aAvait the result. Perfect faith, as well 
as perfect love, casteth out all fear. All things are ours, 
whether the natural or the supernatural, whether science or 
revelation. — See Isaac Taylor's "Restoration of Belief," pp. 9, 10. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

ANGELS. 

1. What are the different senses in which the tuord ayyEXo^, 
angel, or messenger, is used in Scripture ? 

"Ordinary messengers, Job i. 14; Luke vii. 24; ix. 52; proph- 
ets, Is. xlii. 19 ; Mai. iii. 1 ; priests, Mai. ii. 7 ; ministers of the 
New Testament, Kev. i. 20; also impersonal agents, as pillar 
of cloud, Ex. xiv. 19; pestilence, 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, 17; winds, 
Ps. civ. 4; plagues, called 'evil angels,' lxxviii. 49; Paul's 
thorn in the flesh, 'angel of Satan,' 2 Cor. xii. 7." Also the 
second person of the Trinity, "Angel of his presence;" "Angel 
of the Covenant," Isa. lxiii. 9; Mai. iii. 1. But the term is 
chiefly applied to the heavenly intelligences, Matt. xxv. 31. — 
SeeKitto's "Bib. Ency." 

2. What are the Scriptural designations of angels, and hoiu 
far are those designations expressive of their nature and offices ? 

Good angels (for evil spirits, see Question 15) are designated 
in Scripture as to their nature, dignity, and power, as "spirits," 
Heb. i. 14; "thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, mights," 
Eph. i. 21, and Col. i. 16; "sons of God," Luke xx. 36; Job i. 6; 
"mighty angels," and "powerful in strength," 2 Thess. i. 7; 
Ps. ciii. 20; "holy angels," "elect angels," Luke ix. 26; 1 Tim. 
v. 21; and as to the offices they sustain in relation to God and 
man, they are designated as " angels or messengers," and as 
"ministering spirits," Heb. i. 13, 14. 

3. What were the cherubim ? 

" They were ideal creatures, compounded of four parts, those 
namely, of a man, an ox, a lion, and an eagle." "The predomi- 
nant appearance was that of a man, but the number of faces, 
feet, and hands differed according to circumstances." — Ezek. 
i. 6, compare with Ezek. xli. 18, 19, and Ex. xxv. 20. 

To the same ideal beings is applied the designation "living 



250 ANGELS. 

creatures "(Ezeki. 5-22; x. 15, 17; Rev. iv. 6-9; v. 6-14; 
vi. 1-7; vii. 11; xiv. 3; xv. 7; xix. 4), rendered in our version 
"beasts." 

"They were symbolical of the highest properties of creature 
life, and of these as the outgoings and manifestation of the 
divine life; but they were typical of redeemed and glorified 
manhood, or prophetical representations of it, as that in which 
these properties were to be combined and exhibited. 

" They were appointed immediately after the fall to man's 
original place in the garden, and to his office in connection 
with the tree of life." — Gen iii. 24. 

"The other and more common connection in which the 
cherub appears is with the throne or peculiar dwelling-place 
of God. In the holy of holies in the tabernacle, Ex. xxv. 22, 
he was called the God who dwelleth between and sitteth upon 
the cherubim, 1 Sam. iv. 4 ; Ps. lxxx. 1 ; Ezek. i. 26, 28 ; whose 
glory is above the cherubim. In Rev. iv. 6, we read of the 
living creatures who were in the midst of the throne and around 
about it." 

"What does this bespeak but the wonderful fact brought 
out in the history of redemption, that man's nature is to be 
exalted to the dwelling-place of the Godhead? In Christ it 
is taken, so to speak, into the very bosom of the Deity; and 
because it is so highly honored in him, it shall attain to more 
than angelic glory in his members." — Fairbairn's "Typology," 
Pt. II., Chapter i., Section 3. See also "Imperial Bible Dic- 
tionary," Art. Cherubim. 

4. What is the etymology of the word seraphim, and what is 
taught in Scripture concerning them ? 

The word signifies burning, bright, dazzling. It occurs in the 
Bible only once. — Isa. vi. 2, 6. It probably presents, under a 
different aspect, the ideal beings commonly designated cheru- 
bim and living creatures. 

5. Is there any evidence that angels are of various orders and 
ranks ? 

That such distinctions certainly exist appears evident — 
1st. From the language of Scripture. Gabriel is distinguished 
as one that stands in the presence of God (Luke i. 19), evi- 
dently in some pre-eminent sense; and Michael as one of the 
chief princes. — Dan. x. 13. Observe also the epithets archangel, 
thrones, dominions, principalities, powers. — Jude 9; Eph. i. 21. 
2d. From the analogy of the fallen angels. — See Eph. ii. 2 ; Matt, 
ix. 34. 3d. From the analogy of human society and of the 



THEIR NUMBER, POWER, AND EMPLOYMENTS. 251 

universal creation. Throughout all God's works gradation of 
rank prevails. 

6. Do the Scriptures speak of more than one archangel, and is 
he to be considered a creature ? 

This term occurs but twice in the New Testament, and in 
both instances it is used in the singular number, and preceded 
by the definite article 5. — 1 Thes. iv. 16 ; Jude 9. Thus the term 
is evidently restricted to one person, called, Jude 9, Michael, 
who, in Dan. x. 13, and xii. 1, is called " one of the chief 
princes," and "the great prince," and in Kev. xii. 7, is said 
to have fought with his angels against the dragon and his 
angels. 

Many suppose that the archangel is the Son of God. Others 
suppose that he is one of the highest class of creatures, since he 
is called u one of the chief princes" Dan. x. 13; and since divine 
attributes are never ascribed to him. 

7. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the number and 
poiver of angels ? 

1st. Concerning their number, revelation determines only 
that it is very great. "Thousand thousands, and ten thousand 
times ten thousand." — Dan. vii. 10. "More than twelve legions 
of angels." — Matt. xxvi. 53. "Multitude of the heavenly host." 
Luke ii. 13. "Myriads of angels." — Heb. xii. 22. 

2d. Concerning their power, the Scriptures teach that it is 
very great when exercised both in the material and in the spir- 
itual worlds. They are called "mighty angels," and are said to 
"excel in strength." — 2 Thess. i. 7; Ps. ciii. 20; 2 Kings xix. 35. 
Their power, however, is not creative, but, like that of man, it 
can be exercised only co-ordinately with the general laws of 
nature, in the absolute sense of that word. 

8. What are their employments ? 

1st. They behold the face of God in heaven, adore the divine 
perfections, study every revelation he makes of himself in prov- 
idence and redemption, and are perfectly blessed in his presence 
and service. — Matt, xviii. 10; Rev. v. 11; 1 Pet. i. 12. 

2d. God employs them as his instruments in administer- 
ing the affairs of his providence. — Gen. xxviii. 12; Dan. x. 13. 
(1.) The law "was ordained by angels." — Gal. iii. 19; Acts vii. 
53; Heb. ii. 2. (2.) They are instruments of good to God's 
people. — Heb. i. 14; Acts"xii. 7; Ps. xci. 10-12. (3.) They ex- 
ecute judgment upon God's enemies. — Acts xii. 23; 2 Kings 
xix. 35; 1 Chron. xxi. 16. (4.) They will officiate in the final 
judgment, in separating the good from the bad, in gathering 



252 ANGELS. 

the elect, and in bearing them up to meet the Lord in the air. 
Matt. xiii. 30, 39; xxiv. 31; 1 Thess. iv. 17. 

9. Have angels bodies, and hoiv are the apparitions of angels to 
be accounted for ? 

Angels are called in the Scriptures "spirits" (nvsv/iara), 
Heb. i. 14, a word which is also used to designate the souls of 
men when separate from the body. — 1 Pet. hi. 19. There is 
hoAvever nothing in that word, nor in the opinions of the Jews 
at the time of Christ, nor in any thing which is told us of the 
nature or the employments of angels in the Scriptures, which 
prove that angels are absolutely destitute of proper material 
bodies of any land. Indeed as the Son of God is to have "a 
glorious body," "a spiritual body" forever, and since all the 
redeemed are to have bodies like his, and since the angels are 
associated with redeemed men as members of the same infi- 
nitely exalted kingdom, it may appear probable that angels 
may have been created with physical organizations not alto- 
gether dissimilar to the "spiritual bodies" of the redeemed. 
They always appeared and spoke to men in Bible times in the 
bodily form of men, and as such they ate food and lodged in 
houses like common men. — Gen. xviii. 8 and xix. 3. 

It has hence been supposed by some that angels have 
bodies like the present "natural" or animal bodies of men 
(titijua ipvxiMdv), 1 Cor. xv. 44, of flesh, bones, and blood, of 
head and features, hands and feet, and that the apparition 
of an angel involved no change in him, but only a coming 
within the sphere of the sense perception of the observer, 
when the angel appeared just as he habitually is. 

Now this is inconsistent with the facts of the inspired rec- 
ord. In certain situations the angels "appeared" precisely 
like common men, and in other situations they acted very 
differently (Acts xii. 7-10; Num. xxii. 31), in passing through 
stone walls, appearing and disappearing at will, etc. Besides, 
one of the three men who appeared to Abraham at Mamre, 
and whose feet he washed, and who ate the meat he had 
prepared, was Jehovah, the second Person of the Trinity, who 
had no body till he acquired it many centuries afterwards in 
the womb of the Virgin. If the apparent human body of the 
one angel was not a real, permanent human body, there is not 
ground to argue from the recorded phenomena that the others 
were. — Gen. xviii. 1-33. 

Besides this, the theory in question indicates absurd confu- 
sion of thought. The animal human body, as we know it, is a 
physical organization in equilibrium with certain definite and 
nicely adjusted physical conditions, and it can exist only under 



THE WORSHIP OF ANGELS. 253 

those conditions. The vertebrate type, of which the human 
body is the highest form, has been continually changed as the 
physical conditions of the globe have changed, and it ceases 
always to exist whenever those conditions are changed in any 
decided degree. If it would be absurd to conceive of a human 
body existing in water, or in fire, how much more absurd is it 
to conceive of a warm-blooded, food-consuming animal existing 
indifferently on earth and in heaven; traversing at will the 
interstellar spaces, and as a true cosmopolite inhabiting alter- 
nately and indifferently all worlds, and all elements, ether, air 
and water, and all temperatures, from the molten sun to the 
absolue zero of the starless void. 

The bodily appearance of angels, therefore, must have been 
something new assumed, or something pre-existent and perma- 
nent greatly modified for the purpose of enabling them to hold, 
upon occasion, profitable intercourse with men. 

10. What is the Romish doctrine and "practice with regard to 
the worship of angels ? 

"Catechismus Eomanus," hi. 2, 9, 10. — "For the Holy Spirit 
who sa} T s, Honor and glory unto the only God (1 Tim. i. 17), com- 
mands us also to honor our parents and elders (Lev. xix. 32, etc.) ; 
and the holy men who worshipped one God only are also said 
in the sacred Scriptures to have adored (Gen. xxiii. 7, 12, etc.), 
that is, to have suppliantly venerated, kings. If then kings, 
by whose agency God governs the world, are treated with so 
high an honor, shall we not give to the angelic spirits an honor 
greater in proportion as these blessed minds exceed kings in 
dignity ; [to those angelic spirits] whom God has been pleased 
to constitute his ministers; whose services he makes use of, 
not only in the government of the Church, but also of the rest 
of the universe; by whose aid, although we see them not, we 
are daily delivered from the greatest dangers both of soul 
and body? Add to this the charity with which they love us, 
through which, as Scripture informs us, they pour out their 
prayers for those countries (Dan. ii. 13) over Avhich they are 
placed by Providence, and for those too, no doubt, whose 
guardians they are, for they present our prayers and tears 
before the throne of God (Job hi. 25; xii. 12; Eev. viii. 3). 
Hence our Lord has taught us in the gospel not to scandalize 
the little ones, because in heaven their angels do always behold the 
face of his Father ivhich is in heaven. 

"Their intercession, therefore, we must invoke, because they 
always behold God, and receive from him the most willing ad- 
vocacy of our salvation. To this, their invocation, the sacred 
Scriptures bear testimony. — Gen. xlviii. 15, 16." 



254 ANGELS. 

11. What views have been entertained with respect to "Guar- 
dian Angels " ? 

"It was a favorite opinion of the Christian Fathers that 
every individual is under the care of a particular angel, who 
is assigned to him as a guardian. They spoke also of two 
angels, — the one good, the other evil, — whom they conceived 
to be attendant on each individual: the good angel prompting 
to all good, and averting ill; and the evil angel prompting to 
all ill, and averting good (Hermas xi. 6). The Jews (except- 
ing the Sadducees) entertained this belief, as do the Moslems. 
The heathen held it in a modified form — the Greeks having 
their tutelary dsemon, and the Komans their genius. There 
is however nothing to support this notion in the Bible. The 
passages usually referred to for its support (Ps. xxxiv. 7 ; Matt. 
xviii. 10), have assuredly no such meaning. The former sim- 
ply denotes that God employs the ministry of angels to deliver 
his people from affliction and danger; and the celebrated pas- 
sage in Matthew means that the infant children of believers, 
or the least among the disciples of Christ, whom the ministers 
of the church might be disposed to neglect, are in such esti- 
mation elsewhere, that angels do not think it below their 
dignity to minister unto them." Nothing is said of the per- 
sonal assignment of angels to individual men. — Kitto's "Bib. 
Encyclo." 

12. What are the names by ivhich Satan is distinguished,, and 
ivhat is their import ? 

Satan, which signifies adversary, Luke x. 18. The Devil 
(Sidfiolos always occurs in the singular) signifying slanderer, 
Rev. xx. 2; Apollyon, which means destroyer, and Abbadon, 
Rev. ix. 11; Beelzebub, the prince of devils, from the god of 
the Ekronites, chief among the heathen divinities^ all of which 
the Jews regarded as devils, 2 Kings i. 2 ; Matt xii. 24 ; Angel 
of the Bottomless Pit, Rev. ix. 11; Prince of the World, John 
xii. 31 ; Prince of Darkness, Eph. vi. 12 ; A Roaring Lion, 1 
Pet. v. 8 ; a Sinner from the Beginning, 1 John iii. 8 ; Accuser, 
Rev. xii. 10; Belial, 2 Cor. vi. 15; Deceiver, Rev. xx. 10; Dragon, 
Rev. xii. 7; Liar and Murderer, John viii. 44; Leviathan, Is. 
xxvii. 1; Lucifer, Is. xiv. 12; Serpent, Is. xxvii. 1; Tormentor, 
Matt, xviii. 34; God of this World, 2 Cor. iv. 4; he that hath 
the Power of Death, Heb. ii. 14. — See Cruden's " Concordance." 

13. How may it be proved that Satan is a personal being, and 
not a mere personification of evil ? 

Throughout all the various books of Scripture Satan is 



WICKED ANGELS. 255 

always consistently spoken of as a person, and personal at- 
tributes are predicated of him. Such passages as Matt. iv. 
1-11, and John viii. 44, are decisive. 

14. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the relation of 
Satan to oilier evil spirits and to our world ? 

Other evil spirits are called "his angels," Matt. xxv. 41; 
and he is called "Prince of Devils," Matt. ix. 34; and "Prince 
of the powers of the Air," and "Prince of Darkness," Eph. 
vi. 12. This indicates that he is the master spirit of evil. 

His relation to this worfd is indicated by the history of the 
Fall, 2 Cor. xi. 3 ; Kev. xii. 9, and by such expressions as " God 
of this World," 2 Cor. iv. 4; and "Spirit that worketh in the 
children of disobedience," Eph. ii. 2; wicked men are said to 
be his children, 1 John hi. 10; he blinds the minds of those 
that believe not and leads them captive at his will, 2 Tim. 
ii. 26; he also pains, harasses, and tempts God's true people 
as far as is permitted for their ultimate good. — Luke xxii. 31 ; 
2 Cor. xii. 7 ; 1 Thess. ii. 18. 

15. What are the terms by lohich fallen spirits are designated? 

The Greek word 6 8idfio\o<;, the devil, is in the original ap- 
plied only to Beelzebub. Other evil spirits are called Saijuoves, 
daemons, Mark v. 12 (translated devils); unclean spirits, Mark 
v. 13; angels of the devil, Matt. xxv. 41; principalities, powers, 
rulers of the darkness of this world, Eph. vi. 12; angels that 
sinned, 2 Pet. ii. 4; angels that kept not their first estate, 
but left their own habitation, Jude vi. ; lying spirits, 2 Chron. 
xviii. 22. 

16. What power or agency over the bodies and souls of men is 
ascribed to them ? 

Satan, like all other finite beings, can only be in one place 
at a time ; yet all that is done by his agents being attributed 
to him, he appears to be practically ubiquitous. 

It is certain that at times at least they have exercised an 
inexplicable influence over the bodies of men, yet that influence 
is entirely subject to God's control. — Job ii. 7; Luke xiii. 16; 
Acts x. 38. They have caused and aggravated diseases, and 
excited appetites and passions. — 1 Cor. v. 5. Satan, in some 
sense, has the power of death. — Heb. ii. 14. 

With respect to the souls of men, Satan and his angels are 
utterly destitute of any power either to change the heart or to 
coerce the will, their influence being simply moral, and exer- 
cised in the way of deception, suggestion, and persuasion. The 
descriptive phrases applied by the Scriptures to their working 



256 ANGELS. 

are such as — "the deceivableness of unrighteousness," "power, 
signs, lying wonders," 2 Thess. ii. 9, 10; he "transforms him- 
self into an angel of light." — 2 Cor. xi. 14. If he can deceive 
or persuade he uses "wiles," Eph. vi. 11; "snares," 1 Tim. iii. 7; 
"depths," Rev. ii. 24; he "blinds the mind," 2 Cor. iv. 4; "leads 
captive the will," 2 Tim. ii. 26; and so "deceives the whole 
world." — Eev. xii. 9. If he can not persuade he uses "fiery 
darts," Eph. vi. 16; and "buffetings." — 2 Cor. xii. 7. 

As examples of his influence in tempting men to sin the 
Scriptures cite the case of Adam, Gen iii. ; of David, 1 Chron. 
xxi. 1 ; of Judas, Luke xxii. 3 ; Ananias and Sapphira, Acts v. 3, 
and the temptation of our blessed Lord, Matt. iv. 

17. What evidence is there that the heathen ivorship devils ? 

"The Saz'juGov is the object of their worship, deididaiucoria 
describes their worship itself, and dsididaijuaov the worshipper." 
Paul (Acts xvii. 22) declared that the men of Athens were 
dei6i8aijj.or£6repovs, i. e., too much addicted to demon-worship. 
David says (Ps. cvi. 37), "The gods of the heathen are demons," 
and Paul (1 Cor. x. 20), "The things which the Gentiles sacri- 
fice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God." Moses said of 
apostate Israelites (Deut. xxxii. 17), "They sacrificed to demons 
and not to God, to gods whom they knew not; to new gods 
that came newly up; whom your fathers feared not." — "The 
Imperial Bible Dictionary." 

18. Where do they reside, and what is the true interpretation 
of Eph. ii. 2, and vi. 12 ? 

These passages simply declare that evil spirits belong to the 
unseen spiritual world, and not to our mundane system. Noth- 
ing is taught us in Scripture as to the place of their residence, 
further than that they originally dwelt in and fell from heaven, 
that they now have access to men on earth, and that they will 
be finally sealed up in the lake of fire prepared for them. — Rev. 
xx. 10; Matt. xxv. 41. 

19. By what terms ivere those possessed hy evil spirits designated? 

They are called "demoniacs," translated possessed with devils, 
Matt. iv. 24; "having the spirit of an unclean devil," Luke iv. 33; 
"oppressed of the devil," Acts x. 38; "lunatics," Matt. xvii. 15. 

20. What arguments are urged hy those who regard the de- 
moniacs mentioned in the New Testament as simply diseased or 
deranged ? 

That we can not discriminate between the effects of demoni- 



DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 257 

acal possession and disease. That precisely the same symptoms 
have, in other cases, been treated as disease and cnred. 

That, like witchcraft, the experience of such possessions has 
been confined to the most ignorant ages of the world. 

They argue further that this doctrine is inconsistent with 
clearly revealed principles. 1st. That the souls of dead men go 
immediately either to heaven or hell. 2d. That fallen angels 
are already shut up in chains and darkness in expectation of 
the final judgment. — 2 Pet. ii. 4; Jude 6. 

They attempt to explain away the language of Christ and 
his apostles upon this subject by affirming, that as it was no 
part of their design to instruct men in the true science of nature 
or disease, they conformed their language on such subjects to 
the prevalent opinions of the people they addressed, calling 
diseases by the popular name, without intending thereby to 
countenance the theory of the nature of the disease, out of 
which the name originated. Just as we now call crazed peo- 
ple " lunatics," without believing in the influence of the moon 
upon them. — " Kitto's Bib. Ency." 

21. How may it he proved that the demoniacs of the New Testa- 
ment icere really possessed of evil sjjwits ? 

The simple narratives of all the evangelists put it beyond 
peradventure that Christ and his apostles did believe, and 
wished others to believe, that the demoniacs were really pos- 
sessed with devils. 

They distinguish between possession and disease. — Mark 
i. 32; Luke vi. 17, 18. 

The "daemons," as distinct from the "possessed," spoke 
(Mark. v. 12), were addressed, commanded, and rebuked by 
Christ.— Mark i. 25, 34; ix. 25; Matt. viii. 32; xvii. 18. Their 
desires, requests, and passions are distinguished from those of 
the possessed. — Matt. viii. 31 ; Mark ix. 26, etc. The number 
of dsemons in one person is mentioned. — Mark xvi. 9. They 
went out of the "possessed" into the swine. — Luke viii. 32. 
We never speak of the moon entering into, and sore vexing 
a man, or being cast out of a lunatic, or of the moon crying 
aloud, etc. The argument of those who would explain away 
the force of Christ's language on this subject, therefore fails. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

PROVIDENCE. 

1. What is the etymology and technical usage of the term Prov- 
idence, and ivhat is the relation which Providence sustains to God's 
eternal Decree ? 

Providence, from pro and video, literally means foresight, 
and then a careful arrangement prepared beforehand for the 
accomplishment of predetermined ends. Turretin defines this 
term as in its widest sense including (a) foreknowledge, (b) fore- 
ordination, and (c) the efficacious administration of the thing 
decreed. In the technical theological as well as in the com- 
mon usage of the word, however, it is restricted to the last 
sense, namely the execution by God of his eternal decree in 
time, by means of the second causes he has originated in crea- 
tion. Foreordination gives the plan and is eternal, all-com- 
prehensive, and unchangeable. Creation gives the absolute 
commencement of things in time. Providence includes the 
two great departments (a) of the continued Preservation of all 
things as created, and (b) of the continued Government of all 
things thus preserved, so that all the ends for which they 
were created, are infallibly accomplished. — See "Conf. Faith," 
chap, v., and " L. Cat.," Q. 18, and "S. Cat.," Q. 11. 

2. State the true doctrine of Preservation. 

Turretin says, L. 6, Ques. 4. — " Conservatio est, qua Deus 
creaturas omnes in statu suo conservat, quod fit conserva- 
tione essential in speciebus, existentice in individuis, et virtutis 
in operationes." 

Preservation is that continued exercise of the divine energy 
whereby the Creator upholds all his creatures in being, and in 
the possession of all those inherent properties and qualities 
with which he endowed them at their creation, and of those 
also which they may subsequently have acquired by habit or 
development. That is, both the being, the attributes of every 



PRESER VA TION. 259 

species, and the form and faculties of every individual are con- 
stantly preserved in being by God. 

3. State the arguments which establish the conclusion that a con- 
stant exercise of olivine energy is essential for the 'preservation of 
all creatures. 

1st. This truth appears to be involved in the very concep- 
tion of a creature in his dependent relation to his Creator. The 
creature is one who has the whole ground of his being in the 
will of his Creator. Being thus absolutely dependent, he can 
no more continue than he can originate his own being. 

2d. This is implied in the sense of absolute dependence, which 
is an essential element of the religious sentiment which is an 
invariable characteristic of human nature. 

3d. It is taught in Scripture. " In him we live and move 
and have our being." — Acts xvii. 28. " By him all things con- 
sist," — Col. i. 17. "Upholding all things by the word of his 
power."— Heb. i. 3; Neh. ix. 6; Ps. lxiii. 8; fxix. 8, 9. 

4. State the Deistic and Rationalistic view as to the nature of 
Preservation. 

They regard the action of God in the matter of the con- 
tinued preservation of the creature as merely negative — a not 
willing to destroy. This view represents the Creator as exte- 
rior to his creation in the same manner in which a mechanician 
is exterior to the machine he has made and set in motion. It 
regards the system of second causes as dependent upon the 
great First Cause only at the beginning of the long line, in the 
indefinitely remote past. They maintain that in the beginning 
God created all things and endowed them severally with their 
active powers as second causes, and adjusted them in a bal- 
anced system, but then left them to act, independently of all 
support or direction from without, according to their nature, in 
their relations, as a man may leave a Avound up-clock. 

5. State the objections to that view. 

1st. This view, as above shown, is inconsistent with the es- 
sential relation of the creature as an effect to the Creator as a 
cause. God is the only ens a seipso. The only cause of the 
creature's being is the will of the Creator. As long as he so 
wills that cause exists. If he should cease so to will the cause 
would be vacated and the effect consequently cease. 

2d. This view is to an unworthy degree anthropomorphic. 
It involves a deplorably unintellectual failure to apprehend 
the essential difference between the relation to the creation 
sustained by God, and that sustained by man to the work of 



260 PROVIDENCE. 

his hand. A man is necessarily exterior to his work, and even 
when present capable of directing his attention only to one 
point at a time. But God is omnipresent, not as to his essence 
only, but as to his infinite knowledge, wisdom, love, righteous- 
ness, and power, with every atom of creation for every instant 
of duration. The creature is always interpenetrated as well 
as embraced in the divine thought and will, and ever is what 
it is and as it is because of God. 

3d. This view obviously removes God so far from the crea- 
tion as to be irreligious in its practical effect. This also has 
been uniformly its influence as historically ascertained. 

4th. It is obviously opposed to the entire spirit of the Script- 
ures, and to those special texts above quoted. 

6. State the view, as to the nature of the divine agency involved 
in Preservation, which stands at tlw. opposite extreme to the above. 

The extreme position opposite to the Deistical one above 
stated is that Preservation is a continued creation. That crea- 
tures or second causes have no real continuous existence, but 
are reproduced every successive moment out of nothing, in 
their respective successive states, conditions, and actions by 
the perpetual efflux of the "vis creatrix" of God. Thus the 
state or action of any created thing in one moment of time 
has no causal relation to its state or action in another moment, 
but the sole, perpetual, and immediate cause of all that exists 
is God himself. 

The foundations of this doctrine were first laid by Des 
Cartes in his views of the relation of the creation to the Creator, 
viewing the former as sustained by the latter by a continued 
creation. These views were pushed to the furthest extreme 
consistent with Theism by Malebranche, in the doctrine of 
"Occasional Causes," and of "our seeing all things in God," 
and were carried to their legitimate, logical conclusion, in 
absolute pantheism by Spinoza. — Morell's "Hist, of Modern 
Philosophy," Part L, ch. 2, §• 1. 

President Edwards teaches the same doctrine incidentally 
in his great work on "Original Sin," Part IV., ch. 3. He says 
that the existence either of the substance, or of the mode, or of 
the action of any created thing in any one moment of time has 
no causal connection with its existence, state, or action the 
next moment. He says that what we call " course of nature is 
nothing separate from the agency of God." He illustrates his 
doctrine thus: " The images of things in a glass, as we keep our 
eye upon them, seem to remain precisely the same, with a con- 
tinuing perfect identity. But it is known to be otherwise. 
Philosophers well know that these images are constantly re- 



PRESER VA TION. 261 

newed, by the impression and reflection of new rays of light; 
so that the image impressed by former rays is constantly vanish- 
ing, and a new image impressed by new rays every moment, 
both on the glass and on the eye .... The image that 
exists this moment is not at all derived from the image which 
existed the last preceding moment the past exist- 
ence of the image has no influence to uphold it so much as for 
one moment . . . So it is with bodies as well as images 
. . . . their present existence is not, strictly speaking, the 
effect of their past existence, but it is wholly, every instant, 
the effect of a new agency, or exertion of the powerful cause 
of their existence." 

7. Show that this doctrine is false and dangerous. 

1st. If God is continually creating anew every creature in 
every moment of time in its successive states and actions, and 
if the state or act of the creature in one moment has no causal 
relation to its state or act in the next moment, it is evident 
that second causes are only modifications of the First Cause, 
and that God is the only real Agent in the universe, and the 
immediate and sole cause of whatever comes to pass. This 
obviously logically involves Pantheism, and as a historical 
fact leads to its adoption. 

2d. It is inconsistent with our original and necessary intui- 
tions of truth of all kinds, physical, intellectual, and moral. Our 
original intuitions assure us of the real and permanent exist- 
ence of spiritual and material substances exercising powers, 
and of our own spirits as real, self-determining causes of action, 
and consequently as responsible moral agents. But if this 
doctrine is true these primary, constitutional intuitions of our 
nature deceive us, and if these deceive us, the whole universe 
is an illusion, our own natures a delusion, and absolute skep- 
ticism inevitable. 

3d. It immediately cuts up by the roots the foundations 
of free agency, moral accountability, moral government, and 
hence of religion. 

8. State the several points in the true doctrine of Providential 
Preservation. 

The true view stands intermediate between the two ex- 
tremes above stated. It involves the following propositions: 

1st. Created substances, both spiritual and material, possess 
real and permanent existence, i. e., they are real entities. 

2d. They possess all such active or passive properties as 
they have been severally endowed with by God. 

3d. The properties or active powers have a real, and not 



262 PROVIDENCE. 

merely apparent, efficiency as second causes in producing the 
effects proper to them ; and the phenomena alike of conscious- 
ness and of the outward world are really produced by the effi- 
cient agency of second causes, as we are informed by our native 
and necessary intuitions. 

4th. But these created substances are not self-existent, i. e., 
the ground of their continued existence is in God and not in 
themselves. 

5 th. They continue to exist not merely in virtue of a nega- 
tive act of God, whereby he merely does not will their destruc- 
tion, but in virtue of a positive, continued exercise of divine 
power, whereby they are sustained in being, and in the posses- 
sion of all their properties and powers with which God has 
endowed them. 

6th. The precise nature of the divine action concerned in 
upholding all things in being and action is, like every mode of 
the intercourse of the infinite with the finite, inscrutable — but 
not more mysterious in this case than in every other. — Dr. 
Charles Hodge's " Lectures." 

9. How may the Scriptural doctrine of Providential Govern- 
ment be stated ? 

God having from eternity absolutely decreed whatsoever 
comes to pass, and having in the beginning created all things 
out of nothing by the word of his power, and continuing sub- 
sequently constantly present to every atom of his creation, 
upholding all things in being and in the possession and exercise 
of all their properties, he also continually controls and directs 
the actions of all his creatures thus preserved, so that while he 
never violates the law of their several natures, he yet infallibly 
causes all actions and events singular and universal to occur 
according to the eternal and immutable plan embraced in his 
decree. There is a design in providence. God has chosen his 
great end, the manifestation of his own glory, but in order to 
that end he has chosen innumerable subordinate ends; these 
are fixed; and he has appointed all actions and events in their 
several relations as means to those ends; and he continually so 
directs the actions of all creatures that all these general and 
special ends are brought to pass precisely at the time, by the 
means, and in the mode and under the conditions, which he from 
eternity proposed. 

Turretin, L.6, Quaes. 1, says, "The term Providence em- 
braces three things itp6yvoo6iv, Ttp6Q£6iv et dioixr/div — the cog- 
nition of the mind, the decree of the will, and the efficacious 
administration of the things decreed — knowledge directing, will 
commanding, and power executing. . . . Hence Providence 



PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT PROVED. 263 

may be regarded either in the antecedent decree, or in the 
subsequent execution ; the first is the eternal destination of all 
things to their appointed ends ; the second is the temporal gov- 
ernment of all things according to that decree ; the first is an 
act immanent within God; the second is an act transient out of 
God. We here treat for the most part of Providence in the 
second sense of the term." 

"Conf. of Faith," Chap, v.; "L. Cat," Q. 18; "S. Cat," Q. 11. 

10. State the proof of tlie fact of such a universal Government 
derived from a consideration of the divine perfections. 

1st The stupendous fact that God is infinite in his being, 
in his relation to time and space, and in his wisdom and power, 
makes it evident that a "universal providence is possible to him, 
and that all the difficulties and apparent contradictions involved 
therein to the eye of man are to be referred to our very limited 
capacity of understanding. 

2d. God's infinite wisdom makes it certain that he had a 
definite object in view in the creation of the universe, and that 
he will not fail in the use of the best means to secure that 
object in all its parts. 

3d. His infinite goodness makes it certain that he would 
not leave his sensitive and intelligent creatures to the toils of 
a mechanical, soulless fate; nor his religious creatures to be 
divorced from himself, in whose communion their highest life 
consists. 

4th. His infinite righteousness makes it certain that he will 
continue to govern and reward and punish those creatures 
which he has made subject to moral obligations. 

11. State tJie argument derived from the innate religious consti- 
tution of mankind. 

The religious sentiment when analyzed is found to embrace 
(a) a sense of absolute dependence, and (b) a sense of immediate 
moral accountability. The sense of absolute dependence naturally 
and actually leads all men of all nations and conditions to cling 
to the conviction of the immediate presence and providential 
control of God throughout the universe and in every event 
To be without God in the world is to be in a condition in 
which the elementary demands of human nature are denied. 
The sense of moral accountability leads all men to believe in a 
universal and supreme moral government present in the world, 
protecting the good, and restraining and punishing the wicked. 
If God is not actually and immediately present in nature and 
in human history, then we can not know him, and he neither 
controls nor protects us, and hence obedience is neither due 



264 PROVIDENCE. 

nor possible, and morality, religion, and prayer are all alike 
vain delusions. 

12. State the argument from the intelligence evinced in the opera- 
tions of nature. 

The great inductive argument for the being of God is based 
upon the evident traces of design in the universe. Now, just 
as the traces of design in the constitution of nature proves the 
existence of a designing mind in the relation of creator, so the 
traces of design in the operations of nature prove the existence 
of a designing mind in the relation of providential ruler. 

The material elements, with their active properties, are all 
incapable of design, yet we find all these elements so adjusted 
in all their proportions and relations as to work harmoniously 
in the order of certain general laws, and we find these general 
laws so adjusted in all their intricate coincidences and interfer- 
ences, as, by movements simple and complex, fortuitous and 
regular, to work out harmoniously everywhere the most wisely 
and beneficently contrived results. The mechanical and chem- 
ical properties of material atoms; the laws of vegetable and 
animal life ; the movements of the sun, moon, and stars in the 
heavens; the luminous, calorific, and chemical radiance of the 
sun; and the instinctive and voluntary movement of every 
living thing upon the face of the earth, are all mutually acting 
and reacting without concert or possible design of their own ; 
yet everywhere bringing forth the most wise and beneficent 
results. As the designing mind can not be found in any of the 
elements it, of course, can not be found in the resultant of the 
whole together. It can be looked for only in a present personal 
God, all-wise and all-powerful, who directs all things by the 
present exercise of his intelligent power in and through the 
creature. 

13. How may this doctrine he established by the evidence afforded 
by the general history of the world? 

If the constitution of human nature (soul and body), in its 
elemental relations to human society, proves a designing mind 
in the relation of creator, exactly so must the wisely contrived 
results of human association, in general and in individual in- 
stances, prove the exercise of a designing mind in the relation 
of providential ruler. 

Individual men and communities, it is true, differ in their 
action from the elements of the external world, inasmuch as 
they act, 1st, freely, self-moved; and 2d, from design. Yet so 
narrow is the sphere both of the foresight and the design of 
every individual agent, so great is the multiplicity of agents, 



PROVIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT PROVED. 265 

and the complications of interacting influences upon each com- 
munity from within, from every other community, and from the 
powers of external nature, that the designs of either individuals 
or communities are never carried beyond a short distance, when 
they are lost in the general current, the result of which lies 
equally beyond the foreknowledge and the control of all. Bat 
the student of history, with the key of revelation, clearly dis- 
cerns the traces of a general design running through all the 
grand procedures of human history, and at points even visibly 
linking itself with the actions of individual agents. God's provi- 
dence, as a whole, therefore, comprehends and controls the little 
providences of men. 

14. State the Scriptural argument from the prophecies, prom- 
ises, and threatenings of God. 

In innumerable instances has God in the Scriptures proph- 
esied with great particularity the certain occurrence of an event 
absolutely, and he has promised or threatened the occurrence 
of other events contingently upon certain conditions. This 
would be a mockery, if God did not use the means to fulfil his 
word. 

It is not reasonable to object that God simply foresaw the 
event, and so prophesied, promised, or threatened it, because 
the event is frequently promised or threatened contingently, 
upon a condition which does not stand in the relation of a 
cause to that event. God could not foresee one event as con- 
tingent upon another which sustains no causal relation to it. 
The truth of the promise or threatening in such a case can not 
depend upon the natural connection between the two events, 
but upon God's determination to cause one to follow the other. 

15. Prove from Scripture that the providence of God extends 
over the natural icorld. 

Ps. civ. 14 ; cxxxv. 5-7 ; cxlvii. 8-18 ; cxlviii. 7, 8 ; Job ix. 5, 6 ; 
xxi. 9-11; xxxvii. 6-13; Acts xiv. 17. 

16. Prove from Scripture that it includes the brute creation. 
Ps. civ. 21-29; cxlvii. 9; Matt. vi. 26; x. 29: 

17. Prove from Scripture that it extends to the general affairs 
of men. 

1 Chron. xvi. 31; Ps. xlvii. 7; lxvi. 7; Prov. xxi. 1; Job 
xii. 23; Isa. x. 12-15; Dan. ii. 21; iv. 25. 

18. Shoic from Scripture that the circumstances of individuals 
are controlled by God. 



266 PROVIDENCE. 

1 Sam. ii. 6; Ps. xviii. 30; Prov. xvi. 9; Isa. xlv. 5; Luke 
i. 53 ; James iv. 13-15. 

19. Prove that events considered by us fortuitous are subject to 
the control of God. 

1st. A fortuitous event is one whose proximate causes, be- 
cause either of their complexity or their subtlety, escape our 
observation. Every such event, however, as the falling of a 
leaf, is linked with the general system of things, both by its 
antecedents and its consequences. 

2d. Scripture affirms the fact. — Ex. xxi. 13; Ps. lxxv. 6, 7; 
Job v. 6; Prov. xvi. 33. 

20. What distinction has been made between a general and a 
special providence, and ivhat is the true view of the subject ? 

Many men admit that God exercises a general superintend- 
ing Providence over affairs, controlling the general current, and 
determining great and important events, while they regard it 
superstitious and derogatory to the sublime dignity and great- 
ness of God to conceive of him as interesting himself in every 
trivial detail. Many who do not clearly understand themselves 
feel and practically judge of all events in their relation to divine 
Providence in like manner. 

But this whole mode of conception and feeling springs from 
a very low anthropomorphic view of God's attributes and man- 
ner of action, as if there could be with the absolute Cause and 
the infinite Ruler the same difference between little things and 
great things as there is with us;' as if to him, as to us, a multi- 
tude of details were more burdensome, or less worthy of at- 
tention, than some grand result. A general and a special 
Providence can not be two different modes of divine operation. 
The same providential administration is necessarily at the same 
time general and special for the same reason, because it reaches 
without exception equally to every event and creature in the 
world. A General Providence is special because it secures 
general results by the control of every event, great and small, 
leading to that result. A. Special Providence is general because 
it specially controls all individual beings and actions in the 
universe. All events are so related together as a concatenated 
system of causes, and effects, and conditions, that a general 
Providence that is not at the same time special is as incon- 
ceivable as a whole which has no parts, or as a chain which 
has no links. 

21. Prove that the providential government of God extends to 
the free acts of men. 



RELATION OF PROVIDENCE TO HUMAN FREEDOM. 267 

1st. The free actions of men are potent causes influencing 
the general system of things precisely as all other classes of 
causes in the world, and consequently, on the principle indi- 
cated in the answer to the preceding question, they also must 
be subject to God, or every form of providence whatever would 
be impossible for him. 

2d. It is affirmed in Scripture. — Ex. xii. 36; 1 Sam. xxiv. 
9-15; Ps. xxxiii. 14, 15; Prov. xvi. 1; xix. 21; xx. 24; xxi. 1; 
Jer. x. 23; Phil. ii. 13. 

22. Show from Scripture that God's providence is exercised 
over the sinful acts of men. 

2 Sam. xvi. 10; xxiv. 1; Ps. lxxvi. 10; Rom. xi. 32; Acts 
iv. 27, 28. 

23. What do the Scriptures teach as to God's providential 
agency in the good acts of men. 

The Scriptures attribute all that is good in man to the free 
grace of God, operating both providentially and spiritually, 
and influencing alike the body and the soul, and the outward 
relations of the individual. — Phil. ii. 13, iv. 13; 2 Cor. xii. 9, 10; 
Eph. ii. 10; Gal. v. 22-25. 

It is to be remembered, however, that while a material 
cause may be analyzed into the mutual interaction of two or 
more bodies, a human soul acts spontaneously, i. e., originates 
action. The soul also, in all its voluntary acts, is determined 
by its own prevailing dispositions and desires. 

When all the good actions of men, therefore, are attributed 
to God, it is not meant, 1st, that he causes them, or, 2d, that he 
determines man to cause them, irrespectively of man's free will ; 
but it is meant that God so acts upon man from within spirit- 
ually, and from without by moral influences, as to induce the 
free disposition. He works in us first to will, and then to do 
his good pleasure. 

24. What do the Scriptures teach as to the relation of Provi- 
dence to the sinful acts of men ? 

The Scriptures teach — 

1st. The sinful acts of men are in such a sense under the 
divine control that they occur only by his permission and ac- 
cording to his purpose. — I Chron. i. 4-14 ; Gen. xlv. 5 and 1. 20. 
Compare 1 Sam. vi. 6 and Ex. vii. 13 and xiv. 17; Is. lxvi. 4; 
2 These, ii. 11; Acts iv. 27, 28; ii. 23; iii. 18. 

2d. He restrains and controls sin. — Ps. lxxvi. 10; Gen. 1. 20; 
Is. x. 15. 

3d. He overrules it for good. — Gen. 1. 20; Acts iii. 13. 



268 PROVIDENCE. 

4th. God neither causes sin, nor approves it, he only per- 
mits, directs, restrains, limits, and overrules it. Man, the free 
agent, is the sole responsible and guilty cause of his own sin. 

Turretin sets forth the testimony of Scripture upon this sub- 
ject thus — 

1st. As to the beginning of the sin, (1.) God freely permits it. 
But this permission is neither moral, i. e., while permitting it 
physically, he never approves it; nor merely negative, i. e., he 
does not simply concur in the result, but he positively deter- 
mines that bad men shall be permitted for wise and holy 
ends to act according to their bad natures. — Acts xiv. 16; 
Ps. lxxxi. 12. (2.) He deserts those who sin, either by with- 
drawing grace abused, or by withholding additional grace. 
This desertion may be either (a) partial, to prove man's heart 
(2 Chron. xxxii. 31), or (b) for correction, or (c) penal (Jer. 
vii. 29; Rom. i. 21-26). (3) God so orders providential cir- 
cumstances that the inherent wickedness of men takes the 
particular course of action he has determined to permit (Acts 
ii. 23; iii. 18). (4.) God delivers men to Satan, (a) as a tempter 
(2 Thess. ii. 9-11), {b) as a torturer (1 Cor. v. 5). 

2d. As to the progress of the sin, God restrains it as to its 
intensity and its duration, and as to its influence upon others. 
This he effects both by internal influences upon the heart, and 
by the control of external circumstances. — Ps. lxxvi. 10. 

3d. As to the end or result of the sin, God uniformly over- 
rules it and directs it for good. — Gen. 1. 20; Job i. 12; ii. 6-10; 
Acts iii. 13; iv. 27, 28. 

25. What are the three general classes in which all theories as 
to God's Providential Government may be embraced? 

1st. Those views which remove God from all present active 
agency in the creation, and assert the entire independence of 
second causes. 2d. Those theories which more or less explicitly 
deny the real agency of second causes and make God the only 
real agent in the universe. 3d. The middle or Christian view, 
which maintains all the principles on this subject taught in the 
Scriptures as: The real efficiency of second causes, especially 
the moral freedom and accountability of man in his acts, and 
at the same time the universal, efficient control of God, whereby 
in perfect consistency with the attributes of his own nature, and 
with the several properties of his creatures, he determines and 
disposes of all actions and events according to his sovereign 
purpose. 

26. State the Mechanical Theory of Providence. 

This view supposes that when God created the universe he 



THE MECHANICAL THEORY. 269 

endowed all the various material and spiritual elements with 
their respective properties and powers, that he then grouped 
them in certain combinations and proportions, and so made 
them subject to certain general laws. The world is thus a 
machine, which the maker has so calculated that it works out 
of itself all his purposes. Having wound it up he leaves it to 
itself. God is the first cause in the sense of his being the first 
member in an endless series of causes always flowing on further 
and further from their source. Some of these philosophers con- 
fine this rigid mechanism to the physical world, and regard the 
free wills of men as an absolutely indeterminate element em- 
braced in the general mechanism of the world. The majority 
however deny free agency, and regard man as one of the cos- 
mical elements not essentially different from the rest. 

All providential interferences and all miracles therefore 
would be impossible. To suppose any necessity for such in- 
terferences would be to suppose some radical defect in God's 
work — that either he must have been incapable of precalculat- 
ing all necessary combinations, or that he was unable to execute 
a machine that would run of itself. Prof. Baden Powel says, 
" It is derogatory to the idea of infinite power and wisdom to 
suppose an order of things so imperfectly established that it 
must be occasionally interrupted and violated." And Theodore 
Parker says, "Men have their precarious make-shifts; the Infi- 
nite has no tricks, no subterfuges — not a whim in God, and so 
not a miracle in nature." 

27. Expose the fallacy of that vieiv. 

1st. It is opposed to the plain teaching of God's word as set 
forth under Questions 15-24 2d. It is essentially irreligious, 
and materialistic. It fails to recognize the education and dis- 
cipline of free intelligent agents as the great end to which the 
universe as a system of means is adapted. It separates the souls 
of men from God, it makes prayer a mockery, revelation impos- 
sible, moral accountability a prejudice, and religion a delusion. 
3d. It is based on a miserably shallow anthropomorphic idea 
of God. It conceives of the universe simply as a mechanical 
system of causes, and as sustaining the same relation to God 
that a human work does to its maker, who is necessarily ex- 
terior to his work. It utterly fails — 1st, To apprehend the real 
indwelling of the Creator in the creation as an omnipresent, 
ever-active, and controlling spirit, a personal agent making- 
law by working through law for the purpose of accomplishing 
elected ends. 2d. To apprehend the true nature of the universe 
in relation to its highest ends as a moral system designed for 



270 PRO VIDENCE. 

the instruction and development of free, personal, moral agents, 
created in the image of God. 

A system involving an established order of nature, and 
proceeding in wise adaptation of means to ends, is necessary 
as a means of communication between the Creator and the in- 
telligent creation, and to accomplish the intellectual and moral 
education of the latter. Thus only can the divine attributes of 
wisdom, righteousness, or goodness be exercised or manifested, 
and thus only can angel or man understand the character, 
anticipate the will, or intelligently and voluntarily co-operate 
with the plan of God. 

Occasional direct exercises of power, moreover, in connec- 
tion with a general system of means and laws, appears to be 
necessary not only "in the beginning," to create second causes 
and inaugurate their agency, but also subsequently, in order to 
make to the subjects of his moral government the revelation 
of his free personality, and of his immediate interest in their 
affairs. At any rate, such occasional direct action and revela- 
tion is necessary for the education of man in his present state. 
A miracle, although effected by divine power without means, 
is itself a means to an end and part of a plan. All natural law 
has its birth in the divine reason, and is an expression of will 
to effect a purpose. — "Keign of Law," by Duke of Argyle. 
The "order of nature" is only an instrument of the divine will, 
and an instrument used subserviently to that higher moral 
government in the interests of which miracles are wrought. 
Thus the "order of nature," the ordinary providence of God, 
and miracles, instead of being in conflict, are the intimately 
correlated elements of one comprehensive system. 

28. What classes of philosophers have actually or virtually denied 
the real efficiency of second causes ? 

All Pantheists, of course, regard all second causes as modi- 
fications of the First Cause, and God the only real agent in the 
universe. Des Cartes, although a believer in God, and in the 
real objective existence of material as well as spiritual agents, 
nevertheless held that they were created anew every moment 
in all their successive states and actions, and so virtually made 
second causes only a modification of the First Cause. His 
disciples deduced therefrom the theory of occasional causes, 
making changes in the second cause merely the occasion upon 
which the First Cause exercises its efficient agency and accom- 
plishes the effect. This led to the Pantheism of Spinoza. Dr. 
Emmons, of New England, held in connection with the "exer- 
cise scheme" the doctrine of divine efficiency. That we know 
nothing in the human soul but a series of exercises connected 



THE THEORY OF CONCURS US. 271 

with an obscure thread of consciousness. God is the real cause 
creating each moment each of these exercises in their succes- 
sions, the good and the bad alike, just as a musician blows the 
successive notes on a pipe at his will. 

To this class of speculations belongs the theory of " Concur- 
sus," which prevailed so long in the Church. 

29. What doctrine was represented by the phrase " general and 
indifferent concursus," and ivho ivere its advocates? 

Theologians were occupied during many centuries with de- 
bating the question as to the nature of the " concursus," or in- 
flowing and co-working of God in second causes. 

The Jesuits, and with them the Socinians and Eemonstrants, 
maintain that this "concursus" is only "general" and "indif- 
ferent"; that is, that it is common alike to all causes, quicken- 
ing them to action, but indifferently, i. e., the first cause is, as 
it were, a mere general stimulant to the second cause, leaving 
each one to determine its own particular mode of action. This 
they illustrate by the general quickening power of the sun, 
which sheds the same radiance universally and indifferently 
upon all earthly objects, which radiance is the common prin- 
ciple of all life and all movement. Where this radiance is 
absent there is no life. Yet it is indifferent to any particular 
form of life or movement — and every particular germ germi- 
nates after its own kind under the quickening power of the 
same sun. 

This theory obviously admits the preservation of the es- 
sences and active powers of all things by God, but it virtually 
denies by omission all real providential government. According 
to this view, God created and preserves all things, and they in 
turn act spontaneously according to their nature and tenden- 
cies without his control. 

30. What doctrine was expressed by the phrase "concursus 
simultaneous and immediate"? 

This phrase expresses an act of God whereby he co-operates 
with the creature in his act, as a concause, in the production 
of the act as an entity. In support of this view, and in oppo- 
sition to the bare admission of the above-explained " concursus 
general and indifferent," the disciples of Thomas Aquinas in 
the Roman Church and all the Lutheran and Reformed theolo- 
gians agreed. The question however remained a point of dif- 
ficulty and of difference as to which is the determining factor 
in this dual causality. Does God determine the creature in 
every case to act, and to act as he does and not otherwise, or 
does the creature determine himself? 



272 PROVIDENCE. 

31. What doctrine ivas expressed by the phrase "concursus, 
previous and determining," and ivho were its advocates? 

Hence the Eeformed or Calvinistic theologians maintained 
in addition the doctrine of "Precursus" or of a " Concursus, 
previous and determining." This signified a divine energy 
acting upon the creature, and in every case determining it to 
act, and to act precisely as it does. Some applied this to such 
human actions as are good, others more logically applied it to 
all actions of every kind whatsoever. 

32. How did the Reformed theologians attempt to reconcile this 
doctrine luith the freedom of man and with the holiness of God ? 

As to the freedom of man, they — 1st. Pleaded mystery. 
2d. They pleaded that the two facts, (a) that human action 
is free, and (b) that God efficiently governs that action, are 
both certainly revealed in Scripture and therefore must 'be 
mutually consistent whether we can reconcile them or not. 
3d. They argued that the modus operandi of this divine con- 
cursus in every case varied with the nature of the creature 
upon which it is exerted, and that it is always perfectly con- 
sistent with the nature of that creature, and its modes of 
action. "Therefore since Providence does not concur with 
the human will, either by the way of co-action, forcing an un- 
willing will, nor by the way of a physical determination, as 
though it were a thing brutish and blind, devoid of all judg- 
ment, but rationally by turning the will in a manner congru- 
ous to itself that it may determine itself, it follows, that the 
proximate cause of each man's action being in the judgment 
of his own understanding, and spontaneous election of his own 
will, it exerts ho constraining force upon our liberty, but rather 
sustains it." — Turretin, L. 6, Q. 6. 

"Moveri voluntarie est moveri ex se, i. e., a principio intrin- 
sico. Sed illud principium intrinsicum potest esse ab alio prin- 
cipio extrinsico. Et sic moveri ex se non repugnat si, quod 
movetur ex alio. Illud quod movetur ab alio dicitur cogi, si 
moveatur contra inclinationem propriam ; sed si moveatur ab 
alio quod sibi dat propriam inclinationem, non dicitur cogi. 
Sic igitur Deus movendo voluntatem non cogit ipsam, quia dat 
ei ejus propriam inclinationem." — Thomas, Vol. I., 105, 4, quoted 
by Dr. Charles Hodge. 

As to the holiness of God in relation to the sinful acts of his 
creatures they held: 1st. That sin originates in a defect or 
privative cause. 2d. That there is a difference between the 
mere matter of the act as an entity and its moral quality. God 
is an efficient con cause of the former, but not of the latter, if it 



THE THEORY INVALID. 273 

be evil. They illustrated this by the use of an illy-timed instru- 
ment in the hands of a skilful player. The player is the cause 
of each of the sounds in their order, but the derangement of 
the instrument alone is the cause of the discord. 3d. Hence 
the relation of God's providence to the evil actions of man, is 
very different from its relation to their good actions. In the 
case of the latter he gives the grace which communicates the 
moral quality, as well as co-operates in the production of the 
action. In the case of the former his concursus is confined to 
the matter of the act, the sinful quality is derived from the 
creature only. 

33. State the several objections ivhich lie against this theory of 
concursus. 

1st. It is an unsuccessful attempt to go beyond the mere facts 
taught by Scripture in the search of an explanation of the man- 
ner in which God acts upon the creature in effecting his ends. 

2d. This theory tends to the denial of the real efficiency of 
second causes, and therefore tends to Pantheism. This was a 
danger less appreciated by the Great Reformers and their suc- 
cessors of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries than it has 
of necessity come to be in our day. It is of the highest impor- 
tance that we hold both the correlated truths of the real effi- 
ciency of second causes, and of the controlling providence of 
God, of human freedom and of divine sovereignty, and then 
leave the question of their reconciliation to the future. 

34. How far do the Scriptures teoich any thing as to the nature 
of Gods providential government ? 

The mode in which the divine agency is exerted is left 
entirely unexplained, but the fact that God does govern all his 
creatures and all their actions is expressly stated and every- 
where assumed, and many of the characteristics of that govern- 
ment are set forth. 

It is declared — 

1st. To be universal. — Ps. ciii. 17-19; Dan. iv. 34, 35; Ps. 
xxii. 28-29. 

2d. Particular.— Matt. x. 29-31. 

3d. It embraces the thoughts and volitions of men and 
events apparently contingent. — Prov. xxi. 1; xvi. 9, 33; xix. 21; 
2 Chron. xvi. 9. 

4th. It is efficacious. — Lam. ii. 17 ; Ps. xxxiii. 11 ; Job 
xxiii. 13. 

5th. It is the execution of his eternal purpose, embracing 
all his works from the beginning in one entire system. — Acts 
xv. 18; Eph. i. 11; Ps. civ. 24; Isa. xxviii. 29. 
17 



274 PRO VIDENCE. 

6 th. Its chief end is his own glory, and snbordinately 
thereto, the highest good of his redeemed church. — Horn, ix. 17 ; 
xi. 36; viii. 28. 

7th. The Scriptures teach that the manner in which God 
executes his providential government must be consistent with 
his own perfections, since " God can not deny himself," 2 Tim. 
ii. 13. 

8th. Also congruous with the nature of every creature 
effected thereby, since all free agents remain free and re- 
sponsible. 

9th. Also that God in the case of the good actions of men 
gives the grace and the motive, and co-operates in the act from 
first to last. — Phil. ii. 13. But in the case of the sinful actions 
of men he simply permits the sinful action, restrains it, and 
then overrules it for his own glory and the highest good of his 
creation. 

35. How can the existence of moral and physical evil be recon- 
ciled ivith the doctrine of God's providential government ? 

The mystery of the origin and permission of moral evil we 
can not solve. 

As to physical evil, we answer — 

1st. That it is never provided for as an end in itself, but 
always a means to an overbalancing good. 

2d. That in its existing relations to moral evil as corrective 
and punitive, it is justified alike by reason and conscience as 
perfectly worthy of a wise, righteous, and merciful God. 

36. Show that the apparently anomalous distribution of happi- 
ness and misery in this world is not inconsistent with the doctrine 
of providence. 

1st. Every moral agent in this world has more of good and 
less of evil than he deserves. 

2d. Happiness and misery are much more equally distrib- 
uted in this world than appears upon the surface. 

3d. As a general rule, virtue is rewarded and vice punished 
even here. 

4th. The present dispensation is a season of education, prep- 
aration, and trial, and not one of rewards and punishments. — 
See Ps. lxxiii. 

Extraordinary Providences and Miracles. 

37. How do Extraordinary Providences differ from ordinary 
events in their relation to Gods 'providential control ? 

Events like that of the flight of quails, and the draught of 



MIRACLES. 275 

fishes, mentioned in Num. xi. 31, 32, and Luke v. 6, as far as 
ive know, differ from events occurring under the ordinary provi- 
dential control of God only in respect to the divinely prear- 
ranged conjunction of circumstances. The events are not 
supernatural, only unusual, and their peculiarity is only that 
they occur in eminently felicitous conjunction with other 
events, such as the need of the Israelites, and of the apos- 
tles, with which they have no natural connection. 

38. How are miracles designated in the New Testament ? 

They are called — (1) repara, wonders, Acts ii. 19 ; (2) 8rva- 
jtisis, works of superhuman power, and (3) dr?jueia, signs, John 
ii. 18, Matt. xii. 38. The last designation expresses their true 
office. They are designed to be " signs " incapable of being 
counterfeited, of God's commission and authentication of a 
religious teacher and of his doctrine. 

39. How then is a miracle, in the Scriptural sense of that word, 
to be defined, so as to signalize its specific distinction from supernat- 
ural events in general, and from extraordinary Providences, as 
above explained ? 

A miracle is (1) an event occurring in the physical world, 
capable of being discerned and discriminated by the bodily 
senses of human witnesses, (2) of such a character that it can 
be rationally referred to no other cause than the immediate 
volition of God, (3) accompanying a religious teacher, and 
designed to authenticate his divine commission and the truth 
of his message. 

40. State and answer the a 'priori objection to the possibility of 
miracles, that they essentially involve the violation of the laws of 
nature. 

It is maintained that all experience, and the integrity of 
human reason, unite in guaranteeing the absolute inviolability 
of the law of continuity — that every possible event finds its 
full explanation in adequate causes which precede it, and that 
every event in its turn causes endless consequences to succeed 
it. No event can be isolated from its antecedents and conse- 
quences, nor from its conditions, and every cause acts accord- 
ing to an intelligible law of its nature. 

This is all true, and as true of miracles as of any other 
events. 

If by "law of nature" we mean the physical forces which 
produce effects, then no miracle involves any suspension or 
violation of such law. It is a common experience that forces 



i 



276 PROVIDENCE. 

modify each other, and each added force combines with others 
in producing effects otherwise impossible. If by " law of na- 
ture " we mean the ordinary course of events observed in nature, 
then a miracle is, by definition, a signal suspension of that order. 
But the same thing is brought about every day by the inter- 
vention in nature of the intelligent wills of men. 

In every physical event there are a combination of con- 
causes combining to effect it. The human will in acting 
violates no law, and annihilates no force, it simply combines 
natural forces under special conditions, and interpolates into 
the sum of con causes a new concause — the human volition. 

When the sons of the prophets " cut down a stick and cast 
it into the water and the iron of the axe-head did swim " 
(2 Kings vi. 6), neither the specific gravities of the iron nor of 
the water were altered, nor was the law of gravitation sus- 
pended. The miracle consisted only in a divine volition in- 
terpolating a new transient force, equal to the excess of the 
specific gravity of the iron over that of the water, and acting 
in a direction opposite to that of gravity. This is precisely 
analogous to the action of the human will upon physical 
objects — with this exception — man's will acts upon outward 
objects only indirectly through the mechanism of his body, 
and directly only upon his voluntary muscles; while God's will 
acts directly upon every element of the world he has created. 
And what is true in this simple miracle could be shown to be 
true in the most complex ones, such as the raising of Lazarus, 
if we knew enough of the chemistry and physiology of human 
life. 

John Stuart Mill ("Essay on Theism," Pt. iv.) says, "It may 
be argued that 'the power of volition over phenomena is itself 
a law, and one of the earliest known and acknowledged laws 
of nature. . . . The interference of human will with the 
course of nature is only not an exception to law, when we in- 
clude among laws the relation of motive to volition; and by 
the same rule interference by the divine will would not be an 
exception either; since we can not but suppose Deity, in every 
one of his acts, to be determined by motives.' The alleged 
analogy holds good: but what it proves is only what I have 
from the first maintained — that divine interference with nature 
could be proved if we had the same sort of evidence for it 
which we have for human interferences." 

That is, this greatest of all the philosophical rationalists 
maintains that there is no a priori ground to judge miracles 
impossible. It is purely a question as to the sufficiency of the 
evidence. Every Christian is perfectly satisfied that the evi- 
dence (historical, moral, and spiritual) for the resurrection of 



DESIGN OF MIRACLES. 277 

Christ, and the miracles historically associated with that event, 
is abundantly sufficient. 

41. State and answer the objection to the occurrence of a miracle 
drawn from the balance of the physical universe. 

It is a fact that the whole physical universe forms one sys- 
tem, and that as at present adjusted it is in a state of such del- 
icate equilibrium that the addition or subtraction ol a single 
atom in any one portion of it would disturb that equilibrium 
throughout the entire system. A disturbance, however slight, 
ab extra— the intrusion of an agent not belonging to the system 
of things, would be destructive of the whole. 

It is obvious that this objection would have weight if the 
material universe were an exclusive whole by itself, and if it 
sustained no constitutional relation to God. But if God and 
the created world together constitute a whole — a complete 
universe of things — the objection is absurd. The sum of his 
activities of every kind is the necessary complement of the 
sum of the activities of all his creatures, and only thus the 
equilibrium is maintained. 

It is plain that the will of God is no more outside the sum 
of things constituting the universe than is the will of man. 
And man is constantly modifying nature over wide areas, and 
every moment bringing his will as a new concause to act upon 
the physical laws of the universe ab extra, and giving them new 
directions and conditions. 

The equilibrium of the physical universe, moreover, is not a 
permanent one, but one constantly changing, especially through 
the diffusion of heat and the massing of matter at the centres 
of attraction. 

42. State and answer the objection that the assumption of the 
necessity of miraculous interference is derogatory to the wisdom 
and power of the Creator. 

It is argued that the skill of a human workman is always 
exhibited in proportion to the ability of his work to perform its 
designed function independently of his repair, or correction, or 
guidance. That the necessity of interference for any purpose 
ab extra is a proof of defect or at least of limitation in the skill 
or power of the maker. Any occasion for a miracle therefore 
could only arise, they argue, from a change of purpose on the 
part of God, or a radical defect upon the part of his creation. 
Theodore Parker said, "There is no whim in God, and therefore 
no miracle in nature." 

This would have force if miracles were designed to correct 



278 ' PROVIDENCE. 

the defective working of the physical universe. But this no 
Christian has ever dreamed. 

The design of a miracle is simply to signify to God's intelli- 
gent creatures his active intervention in the moral universe for 
the purpose of restoring the order disturbed by sin. The moral 
system is essentially different from the physical one. The one 
is mechanical, the other embraces the reason, conscience, feee 
will, and the law of motive. Free will makes sin possible, and 
sin makes direct divine intervention necessary, either to redeem 
or to damn. 

All the miracles of Scripture are grouped around the great 
crises in the work of Kedemption, or the restoration of the 
original natural law disturbed by sin. Hence the miracles of 
Scripture, unlike all the miracles of the heathen, or of the Papal 
Church, or of modern spiritualism, instead of being mere won- 
ders, exhibitions of power, wanton violations of natural order, 
are pre-eminently works of healing, acts the whole bearing 
and spirit of which imply the restoration and confirmation, not 
the violation, of law. 

The highest meaning of the word Law is order, arrange- 
ment, assignment of function, to the end of effecting a purpose. 

The supreme essence of all law, therefore, is the eternal 
purpose of God. Not a single miraculous intervention was an 
after-thought. One eternal act of absolutely intelligent volition 
embraced the whole scheme of being and events in all space and 
all duration, appointing all ends and all means and all methods 
at once, the necessary and the free, the physical and the moral, 
the acts of the creature obeying law, and the interventions of 
the Creator imposing law. 

43. How can an event actually occurring he certainly recognized 
as coming under the category of miracles as above defined ? 

I. A miracle, according to the foregoing definition, is "an 
event occurring in the physical world capable of- being dis- 
cerned and certainly discriminated by the bodily senses." The 
miracles of Scripture fulfil this condition, especially the most 
important of them. They were exhibited (1) in the clear light 
of day, (2) on several occasions, (3) under varying circum- 
stances (4) to a number of witnesses, and (5) to the scrutiny 
of several senses, as of sight, hearing, and touch, mutually cor- 
roborating one another. 

II. A miracle, by the same definition, must "accompany a 
religious teacher, and is designed to authenticate his divine 
commission and the truth of his message." It hence follows 
that every such event, in order to be credible, must (1) be itself 
of a character, rationally and morally, congruous with its pro- 



A MIRACLE CAN BE RECOGNIZED. 279 

fessedly divine origin. (2.) The character of the religious teach- 
er whose commission it authenticates, and the character of his 
doctrine, must be such that it is credible that they represent the 
mind and will of God. (3.) The messenger and his message 
must be found to be consistent, historically and doctrinally, 
with the entire organism of preceding revelations and divine 
interventions. 

III. The miracle, in the third place, must be "of such a 
character that it can be rationally referred to no other cause 
than the immediate volition of God." 

It has been objected at this point that a miracle could not 
be certainly determined to be such, even if it occur, because — 
1st. No man knows all the laws of nature, nor what is the true 
line between the natural and the supernatural. . What is new or 
inexplicable is relatively supernatural, i. e., by us incapable of 
being reduced to the categories of nature. 2d. Because evil 
spirits often have wrought supernatural works — and it is impos- 
sible for us, therefore, to determine in any case that the cause 
of the event can be only a direct volition of God. 

We answer — 1st. As far as evil spirits are concerned, the 
kingdom of Satan can easily be recognized by its character. 
No isolated event is ever to be recognized as a miracle. The 
man, and the doctrine, and their relation to the whole system 
of past revelations and miraculous interventions, will in every 
case be sufficient to discriminate the identity of the supernat- 
ural cause of an event. 2d. As far as the question of deter- 
mining with certainty what effects transcend the powers of 
nature, we answer — (1.) There are some classes of effects 
about which no man can possibly doubt, e. g., the raising of Laz- 
arus, and the multiplying of the loaves and fishes; we may 
doubt about the exact boundaries of the supernatural — but no 
man can mistake that which so far transcends the boundaries. 
(2.) These effects were accomplished two thousand years ago, 
in an unscientific age, by an unlearned people. (3.) These 
effects were produced over and over again at tlie mere ivord of 
command, ivithout the use of any sort of means, or fixed physical 
conditions. (4.) The works were divine in character, and the 
occasions were worthy, the religious teachers and doctrines 
carried their own corroborative spiritual evidence, and the 
events fell into their place in the entire system of revelation. 



CHAPTER XV. 



THE MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL, WILL, LIBERTY, ETC. 

1. What general department of theology are ice now entering, 
and what are the 'principal topics embraced in it ? 

The general department of Anthropology, and the principal 
topics embraced in this department, are the moral constitution 
of man psychologically considered, the moral condition of man 
when created, and the providential relations into which man 
was introduced at his creation, — the nature of sin, the sin of 
Adam, the effects of his sin upon himself and upon his pos- 
terity, and the consequent moral condition and legal relations 
into which his descendants are introduced at birth. 

It is obvious that an accurate understanding of the nature 
of sin, original or actual, of the influence of divine grace, and 
of the change wrought in the soul in regeneration, of course 
involves some previous knowledge of the constitutional facul- 
ties of the soul, and especially of those faculties which partic- 
ularly distinguish man as a moral agent. Hence there are 
certain psychological and metaphysical questions inseparable 
from theological discussions. 

2. What is the general principle ivliich it is always necessary 
to bear in mind while treating of the various faculties of the human 
soul ? 

The soul of man is one single indivisible agent, not an or- 
ganized whole consisting of several parts; and, therefore, what 
we call its several faculties are rather the capacity of the one 
agent, for discharging successively or concurrently the several 
functions involved, and are never to be conceived of as sepa- 
rately existing parts or organs. These several functions exer- 
cised by the one soul are so various and complex, that a minute 
analysis is absolutely necessary, in order to lay open to us a 
definite view of their nature. Yet we must carefully remem- 
ber that a large part of the errors into which philosophers have 






FACULTIES CLASSIFIED. 281 

fallen in their interpretation of man's moral constitution, has 
resulted from the abuse of this very process of analysis. This 
is especially true with respect to the interpretation of the vol- 
untary acts of the human soul. In prosecution of his analysis 
the philosopher comes to recognize separately the differences 
and the likenesses of these various functions of the soul, and 
too frequently forgets that these functions themselves are, in 
fact, never exercised in that isolated manner, but concurrently 
by the one soul, as an indivisible agent, and that thus they 
always qualify one another. Thus, it is not true, in fact, that 
the understanding reasons, and the heart feels, and the con- 
science approves or condemns, and the will decides, as different 
members of the body work together, or as the different persons 
constituting a council deliberate and decide in mutual parts ; 
but it is true that the one indivisible, rational, feeling, moral, 
self-determining soul reasons, feels, approves, or condemns and 
decides. 

The self-determining power of the iviU as an abstract faculty 
is absurd as a doctrine, and would be disastrous as an experi- 
ence; but the self-determining power of the human soul as a 
concrete, rational, feeling agent, is a fact of universal conscious- 
ness, and a fundamental doctrine of moral philosophy and of 
Christian theology. The real question is not as to the liberty 
of the iciU, but as to the liberty of the man in icilling. It is obvi- 
ous that we are free if we have liberty to will as ice please, 
i. e., as upon the whole we judge best, and all things consid- 
ered desire. 

3. How may the leading faculties of the human soul be classified? 
and which are the seat of our moral nature? 

1st. The intellectual. This class includes all those faculties 
in different ways concerned in the general function of know- 
ing ; as the reason, the imagination, the bodily senses, and the 
moral sense (when considered as a mere source of knowledge 
informing the understanding). 

2d. The emotional. This class includes all those feelings 
which attend, in any manner, the exercise of the other faculties. 

3d. The will. 

It will be observed that the functions of the conscience in- 
volve faculties belonging to both the first and second classes 
(see below, Question 5). 

It is often asked, Which of our faculties is the seat of our 
moral nature? Now while there is a sense in which all moral 
questions concern the relation of the states or acts of the will 
to the law of God revealed in the conscience, and therefore in 
which the will and the conscience are pre-eminently the foun- 



282 MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL. 

dation of man's moral nature, it is true, nevertheless, that every 
one of the faculties of the human soul, as above classified, is 
exercised in relation to all moral distinctions, e. g., the intellect- 
ual in the perception and judgment; the emotional in pleasant 
feeling or the reverse ; the will, in choosing or refusing, and in 
acting. Every state or act of any one of the faculties of the 
human soul, therefore, which involves the judging, choosing, 
refusing, or desiring, upon a purely moral question, or the feel- 
ing corresponding thereto, is a moral state or act, and all the 
faculties, viewed in their relations to the distinction between 
good and evil, are moral faculties. 

4. What is the Will? 

The term "will" is often used to express the mere faculty of 
volition, whereby the soul chooses, or refuses, or determines to 
act, and the exercise of that faculty. It is also used in a wider 
sense, and in this sense I use it here, to include the faculty of 
volition, together with all of the spontaneous states of the soul 
(designated by Sir William Hamilton, " Lectures on Metaphy- 
sics," Lect. XL, the faculties of conation, the excitive, striving 
faculties, possessing, as their common characteristic, " a ten- 
dency toward the realization of their end"), the dispositions, 
affections, desires, which determine a man in the exercise of 
his free power of volition. It must be remembered, however, 
that these two senses of the word "will" are essentially distinct. 
The will, as including all the faculties of conation (the disposi- 
tions and desires), is to be essentially distinguished from the 
single faculty of soul exercised in the resulting volition, i. e., 
the choosing or the acting according to its prevailing desire. 

The term "will" is used in the wider sense in this chapter. 
A man in willing is perfectly free, i. e., he always exercises 
volition according to the prevailing disposition or desire of his 
will at the time. This is the highest freedom, and the only 
one consistent with rationality or moral responsibility. 

5. Define the term Volition. 

By the term "faculty of volition" we mean the executive 
faculty of the soul, the faculty of choice or self-decision ; and 
by the term " volition " we mean the exercise of that faculty 
in any act of choice or self-decision. 

6. What is Conscience ? 

Conscience, as a faculty, includes (a) a moral sense or intu- 
ition, a power of discerning right and wrong, which, combining 
with the understanding, or faculty of comparing and judging, 
judges of the right or wrong of our own moral dispositions and 



TRUE TEST AND SEAT OF MORAL CHARACTER, 283 

voluntary actions, and of the dispositions and voluntary actions 
of other free agents, (b.) This faculty judges according to a 
divine law of right and wrong, included within itself (it is a 
law to itself, the original law written upon the heart, Rom. 
ii. 14), and (c) it is accompanied with vivid emotions, pleasur- 
able in view of that which is right, and painful in view of that 
which is wrong, especially when our conscience is engaged in 
reviewing the states or the actions of our own souls. This 
faculty in its own province is sovereign, and can have no other 
superior than the revealed word of God. — See M'Cosh, "Divine 
Government," Book III., chap. i. sec. 4. 

7. What is the true test for determining the moral quality of any 
mental act or state ? 

The only true tests of the moral quality of any state or act 
are — 1st. The inspired word of God, and 2d. The spontaneous, 
practical, and universal judgments of men. 

The moral judgments of men, like all our intuitive judg- 
ments, are certainly reliable only when they respect concrete 
and individual judgments. The generalized and abstract prop- 
ositions which being supposed to be formed by abstraction and 
generalization from these individual judgments may be true or 
not, but they can not be received as a reliable foundation upon 
which to erect a system of evidence. Very absurd attempts 
have been often made to demonstrate the moral or non-moral 
character of any principle, by means of general formularies rep- 
resenting partial truths imperfectly stated, and by means of 
other, — either false, senseless, or irrelevant, — a priori consid- 
erations. 

8. Into ivhat classes are the spontaneous affections of the soul to 
be distributed, and what are the distinguishing characteristics of each 
class ? 

The spontaneous desires and affections of the soul are of 
two distinct classes. 1st. The animal, or those which arise 
blindly without intelligence, e. g., the appetites and instinctive 
affections, these have no intrinsic moral quality in themselves, 
and become the occasion of moral action only when they are 
restrained or inordinately indulged. 2d. The rational affec- 
tions and desires called out by objects apprehended by the 
intellect. 

9. What rational spontaneous affections joossess a moral quality, 
and in ivhat does that quality inherently attach? 

Such rational spontaneous affections are intrinsically and 
essentially either good or bad or morally indifferent, and their 



284 MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL.- 

quality is discriminated by the quality of the objects by which 
they are attracted. They are good when their objects are good, 
evil when their objects are evil, and morally indifferent when 
their objects are indifferent. Their moral quality, whatever it 
be, is intrinsic to them. When they are good, all men con- 
sider them worthy of approbation, and when they are evil, all 
men consider them worthy of condemnation and righteous in- 
dignation, because of their essential nature as good or as evil, 
and without any consideration of .their origin. When good 
these spontaneous affections determine the volitions to good, 
when they are evil they determine the volitions to evil. 

10. To what do ive apply the designation "permanent principles, 
or dispositions " of soul ? and when do they possess a moral charac- 
ter, and what is the source of that character ? 

There are in the soul, underlying its passing states and af- 
fections, certain permanent habits or dispositions involving a 
tendency to or facility for certain kinds of exercises. Some of 
these habits or dispositions are innate and some are acquired. 
These constitute the character of the man, and lay the founda- 
tion for all his successive exercises of feeling, affection, desire, 
volition, or action. As far as these are morally good, the man 
and his action are good; as far as these are evil, the man and 
his action are evil; as far as these are morally indifferent, i. e., 
concern objects morally indifferent, the actions which spring 
from them are morally indifferent. The moral character of 
these inherent moral tendencies of the soul is intrinsic and es- 
sential. They are the ultimate tendencies of the soul itself, and 
their goodness or badness is an ultimate fact of consciousness. 

11. Show that the state and action of the intellect may possess a 
moral character. 

The intellect is so implicated in its exercises with the moral 
affections and emotions, that its views and judgments on all 
moral subjects have a moral character also. A man is hence 
responsible for his moral judgments — and hence for his beliefs 
as well as for his moral feelings, because the one is as imme- 
diately as the other determined by the general moral state or 
character of the soul. A man who is blind to moral excellence, 
or to the deformity of sin, is condemned by every enlightened 
conscience. The Scriptures pronounce a woe upon those "who 
call evil good and good evil, who put light for darkness and 
darkness for light." — Isa. v. 20. Sin is called in Scripture "blind- 
ness" and "fofty."— 1 John ii. 11; Eph. iv. 18; Eev. iii. 17; Matt. 
xxiii. 17 ; Luke xxiv. 25. 



CONSCIENCE INDESTRUCTIBLE. . 285 

12. What are the essential conditions of moral responsibility ? 

To be morally responsible a man must be a free, rational, 
moral agent (see answer to preceding question). 1st. He must 
be in present possession of his reason to distinguish truth from 
falsehood. 2d. He must also have in exercise a moral sense 
to distinguish right from wrong. 3d. His will, in its volitions 
or executive acts, must be self-decided, i. e., determined by its 
own spontaneous affections and desires. If any of these are 
wanting, the man is insane, and neither free nor responsible. 

13. Is. the conscience indestructible and infallible? 

The conscience, the organ of God's law in the soul, may vir- 
tually, i. e., as to its effects and phenomena, be both rendered 
latent and perverted for a time, and in this phenomenal sense, 
therefore, it is neither indestructible nor infallible. But if the 
moral sense be regarded simply in itself it is infallible, and if 
the total history of even the worst man is taken into the ac- 
count, conscience is truly indestructible. 

1st. As to its indestructibility. Conscience, like every other 
faculty of the soul, is undeveloped in the inflant, and very 
imperfectly developed in the savage; and, moreover, after a 
long habit of inattention to its voice and violation of its law, 
the individual sinner is often judicially given up to carnal 
indifference; his conscience for a time lying latent. Yet it is 
certain that it is never destroyed — (1.) From the fact that it 
is often aroused to the most fearful energy in the hearts of 
long-hardened reprobates in the agonies of remorse. (2.) From 
the fact that this remorse or accusing conscience constitutes the 
essential torment of lost souls and devils. This is the worm 
that never dieth. Otherwise their punishment would lose its 
moral character. 

2d. As to its infallibility. Conscience, in the act of judging 
of moral states or actions, involves the concurrent action of 
the understanding and the moral sense. This understanding 
is always fallible, especially when it is prejudiced in its action 
by depraved affections and desires. Thus, in fact, conscience 
constantly delivers false decisions from a misjudgment of the 
facts and relations of the case; it may be through a selfish 
or sensual or a malignant bias. Hence we have virtually a 
deceiving as well as a latent conscience. Notwithstanding 
this, however, the normal sense of the distinction between 
right and wrong, as an eternal law to itself, lies indestructible 
even in the most depraved breasts, as it can not be destroyed, 
so it can not be changed; when aroused to action, and when 
not deceived as to the true state of the case, its language is 



286 MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL. 

eternally the same. — See M'Cosh, " Divine Government," Book 
III., chapter ii., section 6, and Dr. A. Alexander, "Moral Sci- 
ence," chapters iv. and v. 

14. What is the essential nature of virtue ? 

"Virtue is a peculiar quality of" certain states of the will, 
i. e., either permanent dispositions or temporary affections of 
the will, and " of certain voluntary actions of a moral agent, 
which quality is perceived by the moral faculty with which 
every man is endowed, and the perception of which is accom- 
panied by an emotion which is distinct from all other emotions, 
and is called moral." — Dr. Alexander, "Moral Science," ch. xxvi. 

The essence of virtue is, that it obliges the will. If a thing 
is morally right it ought to be done. The essence of moral evil 
is, that it intrinsically deserves disapprobation, and the agent 
punishment. 

This point is of great importance, because the truth here is 
often perverted by a false philosophy, and because this view 
of mdral good is the only one consistent with the Scriptural 
doctrine of sins, rewards, and punishments, and, above all, of 
Christ's atonement. 

The idea of virtue is a simple and ultimate intuition; at- 
tempted analysis destroys it. Eight is right because it is. It 
is its own highest reason. It has its norm in the immutable 
nature of God. 

15. What constitutes a virtuous and ivhat a vicious character ? 

Virtue, as defined in the answer to the last question, attaches 
only to the will of man (including all the conative faculties), 
1st, to its permanent disposition; 2d, to its temporary affections; 
and 3d, to its volitions. Some of these states and actions of 
the will are not moral, i. e., they are neither approved nor con- 
demned by the conscience as virtuous or vicious. But virtue 
or vice belong only to moral states of the soul, and to volun- 
tary acts. A virtuous character, therefore, is one in which the 
permanent dispositions, the temporary affections and desires, 
and the volitions of the soul, are conformable to the divine law. 

A vicious character, on the other hand, is one in which these 
states and acts of the will are not conformable to the divine law. 

The acts of volition are virtuous or vicious as the affections 
or desires by which they are determined are the one or the 
other. The affections and desires are as the permanent dispo- 
sitions or the character. This last is the nature of the will itself, 
and its character is an ultimate unresolvable fact. Whether 
that character be innate or acquired by habit, the fact of its 



WHAT CONSTITUTES MAN A FREE AGENT. 287 

moral quality as virtuous or vicious remains the same, and the 
consequent moral accountability of the agent for his character 
is unchanged. 

It must be remembered that the mere possession of a con- 
science which approves the right and condemns the wrong, 
and which is accompanied with more or less lively emotion, 
painful or pleasurable as it condemns or approves, does not 
make a character virtuous, or else the devils and lost souls 
would be eminently virtuous. But the virtuous man is he 
whose heart and actions, in biblical language, or whose disposi- 
tions, affections, and volitions, in philosophical language, are con- 
formed to the law of God. 

16. State both brandies of the Utilitarian theory of virtue. 

The first and lowest form is that which maintains that vir- 
tue consists in the intelligent desire for happiness. Dr. N. W. 
Taylor says — " Nothing is good but happiness and the means 
of happiness, and nothing evil but misery and the means of 
misery." 

The second and higher form of the Utilitarian theory of 
virtue is that it consists in disinterested benevolence, and that 
all sin is a form of selfishness. This is shown, Chapters VIIL, 
XII. , and XVIII., to be a defective and therefore a false view. 

17. What do we mean when we say that a man is a free agent? 

1st. That, being a spirit, he originates action. Matter acts 
only as it is acted upon. A man acts from the spring of his 
own active power. 

2d. That, although a man may be forced by fear to will and 
to do many things which he would neither will nor do if it were 
not for the fear, yet he never can be made to will what he does 
not himself desire to will, in full view of all the circumstances 
of the case. 

3d. That he is furnished with a reason to distinguish be- 
tween the true and the false, and with a conscience, the organ 
of an innate moral law, to distinguish between right and wrong, 
in order that his desires may be both rational and righteous. 
And yet his desires are not necessarily either rational or right- 
eous, but are formed under the light of reason and conscience, 
either conformable to or contrary to them, according to the 
permanent, habitual dispositions of the man; i. e., according 
to his own character. 

18. Show that this attribute of human nature is inalienable. 

A man is said to be free in willing when he wills in con 



288 MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL. 

formity with his own prevailing dispositions and desires at the 
time. A man's judgment may be deceived, or his actions may 
be coerced, but his will must be free, because, if it be truly 
his will, it must be as he desires it to be, in his present state 
of mind and under all the circumstances of the case at the 
time. 

It hence follows that volition is of its very essence free, 
whether the agent willing or the act willed be wise or foolish, 
good or bad. 

19. Do not the Scriptures, however, speak of mans being under 
the bondage of corruption, and his liberty as lost ? 

As above shown, a man is always free in every responsible 
volition, as much when he chooses, in violation of the law of 
God and conscience, as in conformity to it. In the case of 
unfallen creatures, and of perfectly sanctified men, however, the 
permanent state of the will, the voluntary affections and desires 
(in Scripture language, the heart), are conformed to the light 
of reason and the law of conscience within, and to the law of 
God, in its objective revelation. There are no conflicting prin- 
ciples then within the soul, and the law of God, instead of 
coercing the will by its commands and threatenings, is spon- 
taneously obeyed. This is "the liberty of the sons of- God;" 
.and the law becomes the "royal law of liberty" when the 
law in the heart of the subject perfectly corresponds with 
the law of the moral Governor. 

In the case of fallen men and angels, on the other hand, 
the reason and conscience, and God's law, are opposed by the 
governing dispositions of the will ; and the agent, although free, 
because he wills as he chooses, is said to be in bondage to an 
evil nature, and "the servant of sin," because he is impelled by 
his corrupt dispositions to choose that which he sees and feels 
to be wrong and injurious, and because the threatenings of 
God's law tend to coerce his will through fear. 

The Scriptures do not teach that the unregenerate is not 
free in his sin, for then he would not be responsible. But the 
contrast between the liberty of the regenerate and the bondage 
of the unregenerate arises from the fact that in the regenerate 
the habitually controlling desires and tendencies are not in 
conflict with the voice of conscience and the law of God. The 
unregenerate, viewed psychologically, is free when he sins, be- 
cause he wills as upon the whole he desires; but viewed theo- 
logically, in his relation to God's law as enforced by reason and 
conscience and Scripture, he may be said to be in bondage to 
the evil dispositions and desires of his own heart, which he sees 



DEFINITIONS OF LIBERTY. 289 

to be both wrong and foolish, but which, nevertheless, he is 
impotent to change. 

20. What is the distinction betiveen liberty and ability ? 

Liberty consists in the power of the agent to will as he 
pleases, from the fact that the volition is determined only by the 
character of the agent willing. Ability consists in the power 
of the agent to change his own subjective state, to make him- 
self prefer what he does not prefer, and to act in a given case 
in opposition to the coexistent desires and preferences of the 
agent's own heart. 

Thus man is as truly free since the fall as before it, because 
he wills as his evil heart pleases. But he has lost all ability 
to obey the law of God, because his evil heart is not subject to 
that law, neither can he change it. 

21. Give Turretiris and President Edwards definitions of 
Liberty. 

Turretin, L. 10, Quses. 1. — "As only three things are found in 
the soul besides its essence, namely, faculties, habits (habitus), 
acts, so will (arbitrium) in the common opinion is regarded as 
an act of the mind; but here it properly signifies neither an act 
nor a habit which may be separated from an individual man, 
and which also determines him to one at least of two contra- 
ries; but it signifies a faculty, not one which is vegetative nor 
sensuous, common to us and the brutes, in which there can be 
no place for either virtue or vice, but a rational faculty, the 
possession of which does not indeed constitute us either good 
or bad, but through the states of which, and actions, we are 
capable of becoming either good or bad." 

Quass. 3. — " Since, therefore, the essential nature of liberty 
does not consist in indifference, it can not be found in any other 
principle than in (lubentia rationali) a rational willingness or 
desire, whereby a man does what he prefers or chooses from 
a previous judgment of the reason (facit quod lubet praivio 
rationis judicio). Hence two elements united are necessary to 
constitute this liberty. (1.) r6 TtpoocipErxnov (the purpose), so 
that what is done is not determined by a blind, and certain 
brutish impulse, but en 7tpoaipe6eGos, and from a previous illu- 
mination by the reason, and from a practical judgment of 
the intellect. (2.) to exovdiov (the spontaneous), so that what 
is done is determined spontaneously and freely and without 
coaction." 

President Edwards " On the Will," Section 5, defines Liberty 
as being "the power, opportunity, or advantage, that any one 
has to do as he pleases." 



290 MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL. 

22. What are the two senses in which the tcord motive, as influ- 
encing the ivill, is used? and in which sense is it true that the volition 
is aliuays as the strongest motive ? 

1st. A motive to act may be something outside the soul itself, 
as the value of money, the wishes of a friend, the wisdom or 
folly, the right or the wrong, of any act in itself considered, 
or the appetites and impulses of the body. In this sense it is 
evident that the man does not always act according to the 
motive. What may attract one man may repel another, or a 
man may repel the attraction of an outward motive by the su- 
perior force of some consideration drawn from within the soul 
itself. So that the dictum is true, "The man makes the motive, 
and not the motive the man." 

2d. A motive to act may be the state of the man's own mind, 
as desire or aversion in view of the outward object, or motive 
in the first sense. This internal motive evidently must sway 
the volition, and as clearly it can not in the least interfere with 
the perfect freedom of the man in willing, since the internal 
motive is only the man himself desiring, or the reverse, accord- 
ing to his own disposition or character. 

23. May there not be severed conflicting desires, or interned 
motives, in the mind at the same time, and in such a case how is 
the will decided? 

There are often several conflicting desires, or impelling 
affections, in the mind at the same time, in which case the 
strongest desire, or the strongest group of desires, drawing in 
one way, determine the volition. That which is strongest 
proves itself to be such only by the result, and not by the 
intensity of the feeling it excites. Some of these internal 
motives are very vivid, like a thirst for vengeance, and others 
calm, as a sense of duty, yet often the calm motive proves 
itself the strongest, and draws the will its own way. This, of 
course, must depend upon the character of the agent. It is this 
inward contest of opposite principles which constitutes the 
warfare of the Christian life. It is the same experience which 
occasions a great part of that confusion of consciousness which 
prevails among men with respect to the problem of the will 
and the conditions of free agency. Man often acts against 
motives, but never without motive. And the motive which 
actually determines the choice in a given case may often be 
the least clearly defined in the intellect, and the least vividly 
experienced in the feelings. Especially in sudden surprises, 
and in cases of trivial concernment, the volition is constantly 
determined by vague impulses, or by force of habit almost auto- 



CERTAINTY NOT INCONSISTENT WITH LIBERTY. 291 

matically. Yet in every case, if the whole contents of the 
mind, at the time of the volition, be brought up into distinct 
consciousness, it will be found that the man chose, as upon the 
whole view of the case presented by the understanding at the 
instant he desired to choose. 

24 If the immediately preceding state of the mans mind cer- 
tainly determines the act of his luill, how can that act be truly free 
if certainly determined ? 

This objection rests solely upon the confusion of the two 
distinct ideas of liberty of the will as an abstract faculty, and 
liberty of the man who wills. The man is never determined 
to will by any thing without himself. He always himself freely 
gives, according to his own character, all the weight to the 
external influences which bear upon him that they ever possess. 
But, on the other hand, the mere act of volition, abstractly con- 
sidered, is determined by the present mental, moral, and emo- 
tional state of the man at the moment he acts. His rational 
freedom, indeed, consists, not in the uncertainty of his act, but 
in the very fact that his whole soul, as an indivisible, knowing, 
feeling, moral agent, determines his own action as it pleases. 

25. Prove that the certainty of a volition is in no degree incon- 
sistent icith the liberty of the agent in that act. 

1st. God, Christ, and saints in glory, are all eminently free 
m their holy choices and actions, yet nothing can be more 
certain than that, to all eternity, they shall always will accord- 
ing to righteousness. 

2d. Man is a free agent, yet of every infant, from his birth, 
it is absolutely certain that if he lives he will sin. 

3d. God, from eternity, foreknows all the free actions of 
men as certain, and he has foreordained them, or made them 
to be certain. In prophecy he has infallibly foretold many of 
them as certain. And in regeneration his people are made 
"his workmanship created unto good works, which God has 
before ordained that we should walk in them." 

4th. Even we, if we thoroughly understand a friend's char- 
acter, and all the present circumstances under which he acts, 
are often absolutely certain how he will freely act, though 
absent from us. This is the foundation of all human faith, and 
hence of all human society. 

26. What is that theory of moral liberty, styled "Liberty of 
Indifference" "Self -deter mining Poicer of the Will" "Poicer of Con- 
trary Choice" "Liberty of Contingency" etc., held by Arminians and 
others ? 



292 MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL. 

This theory maintains that it is essentially involved in the 
idea of free agency — 1st. That the will of man in every volition 
may decide in opposition, not only to all outward inducements, 
but equally to all the inward judgments, desires, and to the 
whole coexistent inward state of the man himself. 2d. That 
man is conscious in every free volition, that he might have 
willed precisely the opposite, his outward circumstances and 
his entire inward state remaining the same. 3d. That every 
free volition is contingent, i. e., uncertain, until the event, since 
it is determined by nothing but the bare faculty of volition on 
the part of the agent. — Hamilton's " Keid," pp. 599-624 

The true theory of moral certainty, on the other hand, is 
that the soul is a unit; that the will is not self-determined, but 
that man, when he wills, is self-determined; and that his voli- 
tion is certainly determined by his own internal, rational, moral, 
emotional state at the time, viewed as a Avhole. 

In opposition to the former theory, and in favor of the lat- 
ter, we argue — 1st. That the character of the agent does cer- 
tainly determine the character of his free acts, and that the 
certainty of an act is not inconsistent with the liberty of the 
agent in his act. — See above, Question 12. 

2d. The Christian doctrines of divine foreknowledge, fore- 
ordination, providence, and regeneration. For the Scriptural 
evidence of these, see their respective chapters. They all 
show that the volitions of men are neither uncertain nor in- 
determinate. 

3d. We agree with the advocates of the opposite theory in 
maintaining that in every free act we are conscious that we 
had power to perform it, or not to perform it, as we chose. 
" But we maintain that we are none the less conscious that this 
intimate conviction that we had power not to perform an act 
is conditional. That is, we are conscious that the act might 
have been otherwise, had other views or feelings been present 
to our minds, or been allowed their due weight. A man can 
not prefer against his preference, or choose against his choice. 
A man may have one preference at one time, and another at 
another. He may have various conflicting feelings or princi- 
ples in action at the same time, but he can not have coexisting 
opposite preferences." 

4th. The theory of the "self-determining power of the will" 
regards the will, or the mere faculty of volition, as isolated from 
the other faculties of the soul, as an independent agent within 
an agent. Now, the soul is a unit. Consciousness and Script- 
ure alike teach us that the man is the free, responsible agent. 
By this dissociation of the volitional faculty from the moral 
dispositions and desires, the volitions can have no moral char- 






ULTIMATE SEAT OF RESPONSIBILITY. 293 

acter. By its dissociation from the reason, the volitions can 
have no rational character. If they are not determined by 
the inward state of the man himself, they must be fortuitous, 
and beyond his control. He can not be free if his will is 
independent alike of his head and his heart, and he ought 
not to be held responsible. — See "Bib. Sep.," January, 1857, 
Article V. 

27. Why is a man responsible for Ms outward actions; why for 
his volitions; why for his affections and desires; and prove that he 
is responsible for his affections ? 

"A man is responsible for his outward acts, because they 
are determined by the Avill; he is responsible for his volitions, 
because they are determined by his own principles and feelings 
(desires) ; he is responsible for his principles and feelings, be- 
cause of their inherent nature as good or bad, and because they 
are his own and constitute his character." — " Bib. Rep.," Jan- 
uary, 1857, p. 130. 

It is the teaching of Scripture and the universal judgment 
of men, that "a good man out of the good treasures of his 
heart bringeth forth that which is good," and that a "wicked 
man out of the evil treasures of his heart bringeth forth that 
which is evil." The act derives its moral character from the 
state of the heart from which it springs, and a man is respon- 
sible for the moral state of his heart, whether that state be 
innate, formed by regenerating grace, or acquired by himself, 
because — 1st. Of the obliging nature of moral right, and the 
ill desert of sin ; 2d. Because a man's affections and desires are 
himself loving or refusing that which is right. It is the judg- 
ment of all, that a profane or malignant man is to be repro- 
bated, no matter how he became so. 

28. How does Dr. D. D. Whedon state and contrast the position 
of Arminian and Calvinistic philosophy ? 

Dr. Whedon, in the " Bibliotheca Sacra," April, 1862, says, 
" To this maxim, that it is no matter how we come by our evil 
volitions, dispositions, or nature in order to responsibility, pro- 
vided that we really possess them, we (the Methodists) oppose 
the counter maxim that in order to responsibility for a given act 
or state, poicer in the agent for a contrary act or state is requisite. 
In other words power underlies responsibility." The only limit 
which he admits to this principle is the case of an inability in- 
duced by the free act of the agent himself. This, he says, is a 
fundamental maxim by which all the issues between Armin- 
ianism and Calvinism are determined. 



294 MORAL CONSTITUTION- OF THE SOUL. 

29. Shoiv that the Arminian view leads to consequences incon- 
sistent ivith the gospel, and that the Calvinistic view is true. 

Dr. Whedon admits that Adam after his fall lost all ability 
to obey the law of God, and was responsible for that inability 
and all its consequences, because, having been created with full 
ability, he lost it by his own free act. He also admits that 
every child of Adam is born into the world with a corrupt 
nature, and without any ability to obey the law of God. But 
no infant is responsible nor punishable for this want of ability 
nor for any sinful action which results from it, because it was 
entailed upon him, without any fault of his own, by the sin of 
another. In the way of just compensation, however, for this 
their great misfortune of being innocent sinners, God gives to 
all men in Christ sufficient grace, and hence gracious ability to 
obey the gospel law. If a man uses this gracious ability he is 
saved, and faith and evangelical obedience is accounted for 
perfect righteousness ; if he does not use this gracious ability he 
is condemned as responsible for that abuse of ability, and con- 
sequently responsible for all the sinful feelings, actions, and 
subsequent inability which result from that abuse of power. 

We argue that it follows from this Arminian view — 1st, That 
salvation by Christ is not of free grace, but a tardy and incom- 
plete compensation granted men for undeserved evils brought 
upon them at their birth in consequence of Adam's sin. 2d. The 
" grace " given to all men is as necessary to render them pun- 
ishable sinners, as it is to save their souls. In fact, according 
to this principle, grace sends more souls to hell by making 
them responsible through the possession of ability, than it 
sends to heaven through faith in Christ. 3d. Those who die 
in infancy, not being punishable, because not responsible, for 
original sin, go to heaven as a matter of natural right. 

On the contrary we maintain that the responsibility of a 
man for his moral dispositions, affections, and desires, no 
matter how they may have originated, if he be a sane man, 
is an ultimate fact of consciousness, confirmed by Scripture, 
conscience, and the universal judgments of men. An act de- 
rives its moral character from the state of the heart from which 
it springs, but the state of the heart does not acquire its moral 
character from the action. But the moral quality of the state 
of the heart itself is inherent, and moral responsibility is insep- 
arable from moral quality. 

This is so — 1st. Because of the essential nature of right 
and wrong. The essence of right is that it ought to be — that it 
obliges the will. The essence of wrong is that it ought not to be 
— that the will is under obligation to the contrary, and that 



ULTIMATE SEAT OF RESPONSIBILITY. 295 

the doing of it involves ill desert. 2d. Because a man's moral 
affections or desires are nothing other than the man himself 
loving or abhorring goodness. It is the judgment of all men 
that a profane and malignant man is to be reprobated no matter 
how he became so. It is the character, not the origin, of the 
moral disposition of the heart which is the real question. 
Christ says, " A good man out of the good treasure of his 
heart bringeth forth that which is good, and a wicked man 
out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which 
is evil." — Luke vi. 45 



CHAPTER XVI. 

CREATION AND ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

1. State the evidence that the human race ivas originated by an 
immediate creation by God. 

1st. This is explicitly taught in the Bible. — Gen. i. 26, 27 ; ii. 7. 

2d. It is implied by the immeasurable gulf which separates 
man in his lowest savage condition from the very nearest order 
of the lower creation; indicating an amazing superiority in 
respect to qualities in which the two are comparable, and an 
absolute difference of kind in respect to man's intellectual, moral, 
and religious nature, and capacity for indefinite progress. Even 
Prof. Huxley, who rashly maintains an extreme position with 
regard to the anatomical relations of man to the inferior ani- 
mals, admits that when man's higher nature is taken into the 
account there exists between him and the nearest beast "an 
enormous gulf, a divergence immeasurable and practically infi- 
nite." — " Primeval Man," by the Duke of Argyle. 

3d. It is implied by the fact revealed in the Scriptures and 
realized in history, that man was destined to exercise universal 
dominion over all other creatures and over the system of na- 
ture. Therefore he could not be a mere product of nature. 
One of a series of co-ordinate beings. 

4th. It is implied by the fact that men are called " sons of 
God," and in the whole scheme of Providence and Kedemption 
are treated as such. It is universally testified to by man's 
moral and religious nature, all the more strongly the more 
these elements of his nature are enlightened and developed. 
And the fact is pre-eminently signalized by the assumption of 
our nature into personal union with the Godhead. 

It is obvious that as the intellectual, moral, religious, and 
social natures and habits of men are transmitted by natural 
descent just as much as their anatomical structure, it is not 
only arbitrary but absurd to leave out of view the one set of 
elements, while retaining the other, in any scientific investiga- 



THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN. 297 

tion of the question of his origin, or of his place and relations in 
the order of nature. 

2. Give, the present state of the question as to the antiquity of 
the human race. 

1st. The Scriptures and the entire body of the results of 
modern science agree in teaching that man came into being 
on this earth the last of all its organized inhabitants. There 
has been no new species introduced since the advent of man. 

2d. From the prima facie indications afforded in the incom- 
plete historical and genealogical records of the pre-Abrahamic 
period found in the first chapters of Genesis, the generally re- 
ceived systems of biblical chronology have been constructed. 
The shorter system, constructed by Usher from the Hebrew- 
Text, fixes the date of the creation of man about 4,000 years 
before the birth of Christ, or about 6,000 years ago. The longer 
system, constructed by Hales and others from the Septuagint 
and Josephus, makes the date of the creation of man about 
5,500 years before Christ, or about 7,500 years ago. 

Of these biblical systems of chronology, Prof. W. H. Green, 
D.D., of Princeton, says, (" Pentateuch Vindicated," n. p. 128) — 
"It must not be forgotten that there is an element of uncer- 
tainty in a computation of time which rests upon genealogies 
as the sacred chronology so largely does. Who is to certify 
us that the antediluvian and ante-Abrahamic genealogies have 
not been condensed in the same manner as the post-Abrahamic. 
If Matthew omitted names from the ancestry of our Lord in 
order to equalize the three great periods over which he passes, 
may not Moses have done the same in order to bring out seven 
generations from Adam to Enoch, and ten from Adam to Xoah? 
Our current chronology is based upon the prima facie impres- 
sion of these genealogies. This we shall adhere to until we 
shall see good reason for giving it up. But if these recently 
discovered indications of the antiquity of man, over which 
scientific circles are now so excited, shall, when carefully in- 
spected and thoroughly weighed, demonstrate all that any 
have imagined they might demonstrate, what then? They 
will simply show that the popular chronology is based upon a 
wrong interpretation, and that a select and partial register 
of ante-Abrahamic names has been mistaken for a complete 
one." 

3d. Modern research has developed a vast and constantly 
increasing amount of evidence that the human race has existed 
upon the earth many centuries longer than is allowed for even 
by the chronology of the Septuagint. The principal classes 
of evidence upon this point are as follows. 



298 CREATION AND ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

(1.) Ethnological Pictures, showing that all the divergent pe- 
culiarities of the Caucasian and African types were fully devel- 
oped as they now exist, nineteen hundred years before Christ, 
are found on the Egyptian Monuments. In all historic time 
no changes of climate or habit have produced appreciable 
changes in any variety of the race, therefore, we must conclude 
that many centuries as well as great changes were requisite 
to make such great permanent variations in the descendants 
of the same pair. The Duke of Argyle well says, " And pre- 
cisely in proportion as we value our belief in the Unity of 
the Human Race ought we to be ready and willing to accept 
any evidence on the question of Man's Antiquity. The older 
the human family can be proved to be, the more possible and 
probable it is that it has descended from a single pair." — " Pri- 
meval Man," p. 128. 

(2.) The science of Language, which proves that in very 
remote ages all the nations which speak cognate languages 
must have lived together, speaking the same language and 
branching from a common stock. And that unknown ages 
must have been consumed in the development of so many and 
so various dialects. 

(3.) The science of Geology. The remains of human bodies 
and of human works of art have been found embedded in allu- 
vial deposits in gravel pits, and in caves at such depth and in 
such association with the remains of extinct species of animals, 
as to prove conclusively that since man existed on the earth 
whole groups of great quadrupeds have become totally extinct; 
the climate of the Northern Temperate Zone has been revolu- 
tionized, and very radical changes have been wrought in the 
physical Geography of the countries which have been examined. 

3. Hoiu can the Unity of the Human Race as descended from a 
single pair be proved ? 

Agassiz is the only naturalist of the highest rank who teaches 
that all species and varieties of organized beings must have 
had an independent origin, and been propagated from differ- 
ent parents. He holds consequently that mankind is a genus, 
originally created in several specific varieties. The same view 
is ably advocated in a recent work which has attracted atten- 
tion in England, viz., "The Genesis of the Earth and of Man." 

That man, although generically different from all other 
creatures, is nevertheless one single species is proved — 

1st. From Scripture. — Acts xvii. 26; Rom. v. 12; 1 Cor. 
xv. 21, 22. 

2d. Because the absolute unity of the race by descent from 
one pair is essentially implied in the propagation by imputation 



TRICHOTOMY NOT TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE. 299 

and by descent of guilt and corruption from Adam, and of the 
representative Headship and vicarious obedience and suffering 
of Jesus Christ. 

3d. The higher moral and religious natures of all varieties 
of mankind are specifically identical. 

4th. The same is generally indicated by history and the 
science of comparative philology. 

5th. Greater differences have been generated in the pro- 
cesses of domestication between different branches of the same 
species of lower animals, as among pigeons or dogs for instance, 
than exists between the different varieties of mankind. 

6th. It is a fact universally admitted by naturalists, that the 
union of different species are never freely fertile, and that the 
offspring of such union are seldom if ever fertile. But all the 
varieties of mankind freely intermix, and the offspring of all 
such unions propagate themselves indefinitely with perfect 
facility. 

4. Show that the Scriptures teach that human nature is com- 
' of two and only two distinct substances. 

The Scriptures teach that man is composed of two elements, 
Sto dw/xa, corpus, body, and rvn> itvzvfxa, tyvxn, itvor), C<»7, animus, 
soul, spirit. This is clearly revealed — 

1st. In the account of creation. — Gen. ii. 7. The body was 
formed of the earth, and then God breathed into man the breath 
of life and he became thenceforth a living soul. 

2d. In the account given of death, Eccle. xii. 7, and of the 
state of soul immediately after death, while the bodies are 
decaying in the ground. — 2 Cor. v. 1-8; Phil. i. 23, 24; Acts 
vii. 59. 

3d. In all the current language of Scripture these two ele- 
ments are always assumed, and none other are mentioned. 

5. State the view of those ivho maintain that our nature em- 
braces three distinct elements, and its supposed Biblical basis. 

Pythagoras, and after him Plato, and subsequently the mass 
of Greek and Roman philosophers, maintained that man con- 
sists of three constituent elements: the rational spirit, rovs, itvevjtia, 
mens; the animal soul, tpvxv y anima; the body, d^jna, corpus. 
Hence this usage of the words became stamped upon the 
Greek popular speech. And consequently the apostle uses all 
three when intending to express exhaustively in popular lan- 
guage the totality of man and his belongings. " I pray God 
that your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless." 
1 Thess. v. 23 ; Heb. iv. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 44. Hence some theo- 



300 CREATION AND ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

logians conclude that it is a doctrine given by divine inspira- 
tion that human nature is constituted of three distinct elements. 

6. Refute this 'position and show that the words ipvxr/ and Tcrsvjua 
are used in the New Testament interchangeably. 

The use made of these terms by the apostles proves nothing 
more than that they used words in their current popular sense 
to express divine ideas. The word nvevjua designates the one 
soul emphasizing its quality as rational. The word ipvxrf desig- 
nates the same soul emphasizing its quality as the vital and 
animating principle of the body. The two are used together 
to express popularly the entire man. 

That the nvzvfxa and ipvxy are distinct entities can not be 
the doctrine of the New Testament, because they are habitually 
used interchangeably and often indifferently. Thus tpvxv as 
well as nvsvjia is used to designate the soul as the seat of the 
higher intellectual faculties. — Matt. xvi. 26; 1 Pet. i. 22; Matt. 
x. 28. Thus also nvev^ia as well as ipvxv is used to designate 
the soul as the animating principle of the body. — James ii. 26. 
Deceased persons are indifferently called ipvxai, Acts ii. 27, 31 ; 
Eev. vi. 9; xx. 4; and nyed/Liara, Luke xxiv. 37, 39; Heb. xii. 23. 

7. What do our standards teach as to the state of man at his 
creation ? 

The "Conf. Faith," Ch. iv„ § 2, "L. Cat.," Q. 17, and "S. 
Cat.," Q. 10, teach the following points — 1st. God created man 
in his own image. 2d. A reasonable and immortal soul endued 
with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, and placed 
in dominion over the creatures. 3d. Having God's law written 
on his heart and power to fulfil it, and yet under possibility of 
transgressing, being left to the freedom of his own will, which 
was subject to change. 

The likeness of man to God respected — 1st. The kind of his 
nature; man was created like God a free, rational, personal 
Spirit. 2d. He was created like God as to the perfection of 
his nature; in knowledge, Col. iii. 10; and righteousness and 
true holiness, Eph. iv. 24; and 3d. In his dominion over nature. 
Gen. i. 28. 

8. Give in psychological terms the true state of the question. 

In the preceding chapter it was shown that the volition 
is determined and derives its character from the desires and 
affections which prompt to it; and that the temporary affec- 
tions and desires, which prompt the volitions in any given 
case, themselves spring from the permanent habit, disposition, 
or tendency of will which constitute the moral character of the 



ORIGINAL RIGHTEOUSNESS OF ADAM. 301 

man. It was also shown that the moral character of these per- 
manent dispositions of will, and the responsibility of the man 
for them, is an ultimate fact, incapable of being referred back 
to any principle more fundamental or essential and confirmed 
by the unanimous judgment of the human race. 

It hence follows that the original righteousness and holi- 
ness in which Adam was created consisted in the perfect con- 
formity of all the moral dispositions and affections of his will 
(in Bible language, heart) to the law of God — of which his 
unclouded and faithful conscience was the organ. 

As a consequence there was no schism in man's nature. 
The will, moving freely in conformity to the lights of reason 
and of conscience, held in harmonious subjection all the lower 
principles of body and soul. In perfect equilibrium a perfect 
soul dwelt in a perfect body. 

This original righteousness is natural in the sense (1) that 
it was the moral perfection of man's nature as it came from 
the hands of the Creator. It belonged to that nature origi- 
nally, and (2) is always essential to its perfection as to quality. 
(3) It would also have been propagated, if man had not fallen, 
just as native depravity is now propagated by natural descent. 
On the other hand, it is not natural in the sense that reason or 
conscience or free agency are essential constituents of human 
nature, necessary to constitute any one a real man. As a qual- 
ity it is essential to the perfection, but as a constituent it is not 
necessary to the reality of human nature. 

9. Prove that Adam ivas created holy in the above sense. • 

It belongs to the essence of man's nature that he is a moral 
responsible agent. 

But, 1st. As a moral creature man was created in the image 
of God.— Gen. i. 27. 

2d. God pronounced all his works, man included, to be "very 
good." — Gen i. 31. The goodness of a mechanical provision is 
essentially its fitness to attain its end. The "goodness" of a 
moral agent can be nothing other than his conformity of Avill 
to the moral laAV. Moral indifferency in a moral agent is itself 
of the nature of sin. 

3d. This truth is asserted. — Eccle. vii. 29. 

4th. In regeneration, man is renewed in the image of God; 
in creation, man was made in the image of God; the image, 
in both cases, must be the same, and includes holiness. — Eph. 
iv. 24. 

5th. Christ is called, 1 Cor. xv. 45, 6 i'tf^ro? ASdju, and in 
v. 47, Ssvrepos avtipooitos. He is recognized by friend and foe 
as the only perfect man in all history, the exemplar of normal 



302 CREATION AND ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

humanity. Yet his human nature was formed by the Holy 
Ghost, antecedently to all action of its own, absolutely holy. 
He was called in his mother's womb, " That Holy Thing." 
Luke i. 35. 

10. What is the Pelagian doctrine ivith regard to the original 
state of man ? 

The Pelagians hold — 1st. That a man can rightly be held 
responsible only for his unbiassed volitions; and 2d. Conse- 
quently moral character as antecedent to moral action is an 
absurdity, since only that disposition is moral which has been 
formed as a habit by means of preceding unbiassed action of 
the free will, i. e., man must choose his own character, or he 
can not be responsible for it. 

They hold, therefore, that man's will at his creation was 
not only free, but, moreover, in a state of moral equilibrium, 
equally disposed to virtue or vice. 

11. State and contrast the positions of the Pelagians, of Br, D. 
D. Whedon (ArminianJ, and of the Calvinists, as to innate right- 
eousness and sin. 

The Pelagian holds — 1st. That Adam was created a moral 
agent, but with no positive moral character; that he was at 
first indifferent either to good or evil, and left free to form his 
own character by his own free, unbiassed choice. 2d. That all 
men are born into the world in all essential particulars in the 
same moral state in which Adam was created. 3d. That man 
is naturally mortal, and that the mortality of the race is not 
in consequence of sin. 

Dr. D. D. Whedon (Arminian), in " Bib. Sacra," April, 1862, 
p. 257, while agreeing with the Pelagian in the main as to 
the original moral state into which Adam was introduced by 
creation, differs from him as to the moral condition into which 
the descendants of Adam are introduced by birth. He admits 
that a "created" inclination may be either good and hence lov- 
able, or bad and hence hateful — but he denies that the agent 
can be in the first case rewardable, or in the second case 
punishable for his disposition, the character of which he did 
not determine for himself by previously unbiassed volitions. 
If Adam had formed for himself a holy character he would have 
been both good and rewardable. Since he formed for himself 
a sinful character he was both bad and punishable. His de- 
scendants are propagated with corrupt natures without any 
fault of their own, therefore they are bad and corrupt, but not 
deserving of punishment. 



MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR INNA TE DISPOSITION 303 

In opposition to these positions the orthodox hold — 1st. 
There are permanent dispositions and inclinations which de- 
termine the volitions. 2d. Many of these inclinations are good, 
many are bad, and many others are morally indifferent in their 
essential nature. 3d. These moral dispositions may be in- 
nate as well as acquired, in which case the agent is as respon- 
sible for them as he is for any other state or act of his will. 
4th. Adam was created with holy dispositions prompting to 
holy action. He did not make himself holy, but was made so 
by God. 

12. Why do tve judge that men are morally responsible for innate 
and concreated dispositions ? 

1st. Children are born with moral dispositions and tenden- 
cies very various. Yet it is the spontaneous and universal 
judgment of men, that men naturally malicious and cruel 
and false are both to be abhorred and held morally respon- 
sible for their tempers and actions. 2d. The Scriptures, as 
will be shown under Ch. XIX., on " Original Sin," teach that 
all men come into the world with an inherent tendency in 
their nature to sin, which tendency is itself sin and worthy 
of punishment. 3d. President Edwards " On Will," Pt. 4, § 1, 
says, "The essence of the virtue and vice of dispositions of 
the heart and acts of the will lie not in their cause but in their 
nature." And even the Arminian, John Wesley, says, as quoted 
by Richard Watson, "Holiness is not the right use of our powers, 
it is the right state of our powers. It is the right disposition 
of our soul, the right temper of our mind. Take that with you 
and you will no more dream that God could not create man in 
righteousness and true holiness." "What is holiness? Is it 
not essentially love ? And can not God shed abroad this love 
in any soul without his concurrence, and antecedent to his 
knowledge or consent? And supposing this to be done, will 
love change its nature? will it be no longer holiness? This 
argument can never be sustained." 

13. Prove that a slate of moral indifferency is itself sin, and 
that if it were not so no exercise of a volitional faculty so condi- 
tioned could possibly originate a moral act or character. 

That moral indifferency on the part of a moral agent in view 
of a moral obligation is itself sin is self-evident. The essence 
of morality is that it obliges the will of a moral agent. A 
wcw-moral agent may be indifferent to moral things. A moral 
agent may be indifferent to indifferent things. But from the 
very nature of the case it is absurd to pretend that a moral 
agent can be indifferent with respect to a known moral obliga- 



304 CREATION AND ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN 

tion resting on himself, and yet that that indifference is non- 
moral, but the prerequisite condition of all morality. 

Besides a morally indifferent disposition can not originate 
a holy act or habit. The goodness or badness of an act de- 
pends upon the goodness or badness of the disposition or affec- 
tion which prompted it. It is the moral state of the will (or 
heart, see Matt. vii. 17-20 and xii. 33) which makes the act of 
the will right or wrong, and not the act which makes the state 
wrong. A man's motives may be right, and yet his choice 
may be wrong through his mistake of its nature, because of 
ignorance or insanity; yet if all the prevalent dispositions and 
desires of the heart in any given case be right, the volition 
must be morally right; if wrong, the volition must be morally 
wrong; if indifferent, or neither right or wrong, the volition 
must be morally indifferent also. Hence appears the absurdity 
of their position. If Adam had been created, as they feign, 
with a will equally disposed either to good or evil, his first 
act could have had no moral character whatever. And yet 
Pelagians assume that Adam's first act, which had no moral 
character itself, determined the moral character of the man 
himself, and of all his acts and destinies for all future time. 
This, if true, would have been unjust on God's part, since it 
involves the infliction of the most awful punishment upon an 
act in itself neither good nor bad. As a theory it is absurd, 
since it evolves all morality out of that which is morally 
indifferent. 

Richard Watson, Vol. II., p. 16, well says: "In Adam that 
rectitude of principle from which a right choice and right acts 
flowed, was either created with him, or flowed from his own 
volitions. If the latter be affirmed, then he must have willed 
right before he had a principle of rectitude, which is absurd ; 
if the former then his creation in a state of moral rectitude, 
with an aptitude and disposition to good,. is established." 

14. Show that the Pelagian tJieory can not be based upon ex- 
perience. 

This whole theory is built upon certain a priori notions, and 
is contrary to universal experience. If Adam was created with- 
out positive moral character, and if infants are so born, then the 
conditions of free agency in these supposed cases must be dif- 
ferent from the conditions of free agency in the case of every 
adult man or woman, from whose consciousness alone we can 
gather the facts from which to deduce any certain knowledge 
on the subject. Every man who ever thought or wrote upon 
this subject, was conscious of freedom only under the condi- 
tions of an already formed moral character. Even if the Pela- 



THE IMAGE AND THE LIKENESS. 305 

gian view were true, we never could be assured of it, since we 
never have consciously experienced such a condition of indiffer- 
ency. It is nothing more than an hypothesis, contrived to 
solve a difficulty ; a difficulty resulting from the limits of our 
finite powers of thought. — See Sir William Hamilton's "Dis- 
cussions," p. 587, etc. 

15. What distinction did the Fathers make between the hxwv 
and the d/uoiaotiis of God in which man was created? — Gen. i. 26. 

By the eiuaov or "image" of God the Fathers understood the 
natural constitutional powers of man, intellectual and moral, as 
reason, conscience, and free will. By the ojuoioadis or "likeness" 
of God they understood the matured and developed moral per- 
fection of human nature consequent upon man's holy exercise 
of his faculties. 

Neander, " Hist. Christ. Dogmas," p. 180, says that this was 
the germ of the subsequent mediaeval and Koman doctrine as 
to the original state of man. 

Bellarmin, "De Gratia," et Lib. Arbitrio I., c. 6. — "We are 
forced, by these many testimonies of the Fathers, to conclude 
that the image and likeness are not in all respects the same, 
but that the image pertains to the nature and the likeness to 
the virtues (moral perfections) ; whence it follows that Adam 
by sinning lost not the image but the likeness of God." 

16. What does the Catechism of the Council of Trent teach as 
to the state in which Adam was created ? 

See below the doctrines of the various churches at the end 
of this chapter. 

17. What is the Romish doctrine with respect to the dona natu- 
ralia, and tJie dona sup ernatur alia ? 

1st. They hold that God endowed man at his creation with 
the dona naturalia, that is, with all the natural constitutional 
powers and faculties of body and soul without sin, in perfect 
innocency. There was no vice or defect in either body or soul. 

2d. God duly attempered all these powers to one another, 
placing the lower in due subordination to the higher. This 
harmony of powers was called Justicia — natural righteousness. 

3d. There was, however, in the very nature of things, a 
natural tendency in the lower appetites and passions to rebel 
against the authority of the higher powers of reason and con- 
science. This tendency is not sin in itself, but becomes sin only 
when it is consented to by the will, and passes into voluntary 



306 CREATION AND ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

action. This is concupiscence; not sin, but the fuel and occasion 
of sin. 

4th. To prevent this natural tendency to disorder from the 
rebellion of the lower elements of the human constitution against 
the higher, God granted man the additional gift of the dona su- 
per natur alia, or gifts extra constitutional. This is original right- 
eousness, which was a foreign gift superadded to his constitu- 
tion, by means of which his natural powers duly attempered are 
kept in due subjection and order. Some of their theologians 
held that these supernatural gifts were bestowed upon man im- 
mediately upon his creation, at the same time with his natural 
powers. The more prevalent and consistent view, however, is 
that it was given subsequently as a reward for the proper use 
of his natural powers. See Moehler's " Symbolism," pp. 117, 118. 

5th. Both the "justicia " and the " dona supernaturalia " were 
accidental or superadded properties of human nature, and were 
lost by the fall. 

18. How does this doctrine modify their view as to original sin 
and the moral character of that concupiscence which remains in the 
regenerate ? 

They hold that man lost at the fall only the superadded 
gifts of "original righteousness" (dona supernaturalia), while 
the proper nature of man itself, the dona naturalia, comprising 
all his constitutional faculties of reason, conscience, free-will 
(in which they include "moral ability"), remain intact. Thus 
they make the effect of the fall upon man's moral nature purely 
negative. The Reformers defined it "the want of original right- 
eousness, and the corruption of the whole nature." 

Hence, also, they hold that concupiscence, or the tendency 
to rebellion of the lower against the higher powers remaining 
in the regenerate, being natural and incidental to the very 
constitution of human nature, is not of the nature of sin. See 
below. 

AUTHOEITATIVE PUBLIC STATEMENTS OP THE VARIOUS CHUECHES. 

Eomish Doctrine. — "Cat. Council of Trent'' Pt. 2, ch. ii., Q. 19. — 
"Lastly, He formed man from the slime of the earth, so created and 
qualified in body as to be immortal and impassable, not, however, in 
virtue of the strength of nature, but of the divine gift. But as regards 
the soul of man, he created it in his own image and likeness ; gifted him 
with free-will, and so tempered all his motions and appetites that they 
should at all times be subject to the control of the reason. He then 
added the admirable gift of original righteousness ; and next gave him 
dominion over all other animals." — lb. Pt. 2, ch. ii., Q. 42, and Pt. 4, 
ch. xii., Q. 3. 



AUTHORITATIVE PUBLIC STATEMENTS. 307 

Bellaemin. — "Gratia Primi Hominis" 5. — "It is to be understood, 
in the first place, that man naturally consists of flesh and spirit, and there- 
fore his nature partly assimilates with the beasts and partly with the 
angels ; and because of his flesh and his fellowship with the beasts he 
has a certain propensity to corporeal and sensible good, to which he is 
induced through the senses and appetites ; and because of his spirit and 
his fellowship with the angels he has a propensity to spiritual and 
rational good, to which he is induced by his reason and will. But from 
these different and contrary propensities there exists in one and the same 
man a certain contest, and from these contests a great difficulty of acting, 
while the one propensity antagonizes the other. It is to be understood 
in the second place, that divine providence at the beginning of creation, 
that it might administer a remedy to this disease or languor of human 
nature arising from the condition of its "matter," added the excellent 
gift of original righteousness, by which as by a golden bridle the inferior 
part might be held in subjection to the superior part, and the superior 
part subject to God ; although the flesh was so subject to the spirit, that 
it could not be moved the spirit forbidding, nor rebel against the spirit 
unless the spirit rebel against God; nevertheless it was in the power of 
the spirit to rebel or not to rebel." 

For the statement of Bellarmin's doctrine as to the present moral 
condition into which the descendants of Adam are born, see below, 
Ch. XIX., on "Original Sin." 

Lutheean Docteine. — "Formula Concordice" (Hase), p. 640. [Orig- 
inal Sin] ' ' is the privation of that righteousness concreated in human 
nature in Paradise, or of that image of God in which man was in the 
beginning created in truth, holiness, and righteousness. " 

Befoemed Docteine. — "Canon. Dordt" iii. 1. — "Man, from the 
beginning, was created in the image of God, adorned in his mind, with 
the true and saving knowledge of his Creator, and of spiritual things, 
with righteousness in his will and heart, and purity in all his affections, 
and thus was altogether holy." 

"Con/. Faith," ch. iv.; "L. Cat." Ques. 17; "S. Cat.," Ques. 10. 

Bemonstrant Docteine. — Limborch, " Theol. Christ." ii. 24, 5. — 
' ' They are wont to locate original righteousness in illumination and 
rectitude of the mind, in holiness and righteousness of the will, in har- 
mony of the senses and affections, and in a promptitude for good. It is, 
indeed, most evident that the first of mankind were, in their primeval 
state, of a far more perfect condition than we are when we are born. 
For their mind was not like a blank paper, and void of all knowledge; 
but had been endowed by God with actual knowledge, and instructed 
in the wisdom necessary for that state ; and they possessed also the 
capacity for acquiring further knowledge by reasoning, experience, and 
revelation. . . Their will was not neutral equally indifferent in respect 
to good and evil, but before that the Law was imposed upon it by God, 
it had a natural rectitude, so that it could neither desire nor act inor- 
dinately. For where there is no law, there the most free use of the will 
is clear of blame. — ii. 24, 10. That the first man would not have died 
if he had not sinned, is beyond doubt, for death was the penalty of sin. 
But thence the immortality [natural] of man is not correctly inferred. 
. . . Nevertheless God would have preserved this mortality in per- 
petual immunity of actual death, if man had not sinned." 

Socinian Docteine. — F. Socinus, "Prcelectiones Theol," c. 3. — "We 
therefore conclude that Adam, even before he had transgressed that com- 
mand of God, was not truly righteous, since he was neither impeccable, 



308 CREATION AND ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. 

nor had he hitherto been subjected to any occasion of sinning; at least 
it is not possible to affirm that he was certainly righteous, since it in 
no manner appears that he for any consideration had abstained from 
sinning. But there are those who say that the original righteousness of 
the first man consisted in this, that he possessed a reason dominating 
over his appetite and senses and covering them, and that there was 
no variance between them. But they say this without reason, since 
it clearly appears from the sin Adam committed that his appetite and 
senses dominated over his reason, neither had these previously agreed 
well together." 

"Gat. Racov.," p. 18. — "From the beginning man was created mortal, 
i. e., such an one as not only might consistently with his nature die, but 
also if left to his nature could not but die, although it was possible that 
he might be preserved always in life by a special divine blessing. " 



CHAPTER XVII. 

COVENANT OF WORKS. 

1. In what different senses is the term covenant used in Scripture ? 

1st. For a natural ordinance. — Jer. xxxiii. 20. 

2d. For an unconditional promise. — Gen. ix. 11, 12. 

3d. For a conditional promise. — Is. i. 19, 20. 

4th. A dispensation or mode of administration. — Heb. viii. 6-9. 

For the usage with respect to the Greek term diaQtjx^, usu- 
ally translated in our version testament and covenant. — See Chap- 
ter XXII., on " Covenant of Grace," Question 1. 

In the theological phrases "covenant of works," and "cove- 
nant of grace," this term is used in the third sense of a promise 
suspended on conditions. 

2. What are the several elements essential to a covenant ? 

1st. Contracting parties. 2d. Conditions. These conditions 
in a covenant between equals are mutually imposed and mutu- 
ally binding, but in a sovereign constitution, imposed by the 
Creator upon the creature, these "conditions" are better ex- 
pressed as (1) promises on the part of the Creator suspended 
upon (2) conditions to be fulfilled by the creature. And (3) an 
alternative penalty to be inflicted in case the condition fails. 

3. Show that the constitution under which Adam was placed by 
God at his creation may be rightly called a covenant. 

The inspired record of God's transactions with Adam pre- 
sents definitely all the essential elements of a covenant as co- 
existing in that constitution. 

1st. The "contracting parties." — (1.) God, the moral Gov- 
ernor, by necessity of nature and relation demanding perfect 
conformity to moral law. (2.) Adam, the free moral agent, by 
necessity of nature and relation under the inalienable obliga- 
tion of moral law. 



310 COVENANT OF WORKS. 

2d. The "promises," life and favor. — Matt. xix. 16, 17; Gal. 
iii. 12. r 

3d. The "conditions" upon which the promises were sus- 
pended, perfect obedience, in this instance subjected to a spe- 
cial test, that of abstaining from the fruit of the "tree of 
knowledge." 

4th. The "alternative penalty." "In the day thou eatest 
thereof thou shalt surely die." — Gen. ii. 16, 17. 

This constitution is called a covenant. — Hosea vi. 7. 

4. How is it defined in our standards ? 

"Con. Faith," Chap, iv., Sec. 2; Chap, vii., Sec. 1 and 2; 
Chap, xix., Sec. 1; " L. Cat.," Q. 20; "S. Cat," Q. 12. 

5. Why is it not absurd to apply the term " Covenant " to a 
sovereign constitution imposed by tJie Creator upon the creature 
without consulting his ivill ? 

1st. Although it was a sovereign constitution imposed by 
God, there is no reason to suppose that Adam did not enter 
upon it voluntarily. He was a holy being, and the arrangement 
was pre-eminently to his advantage. 2d. We call it a Covenant 
because that is the proper word to express a conditional prom- 
ise made to a free agent. 3d. The term "Covenant" is constant- 
ly applied in Scripture to other sovereign constitutions of like 
character which the Creator has imposed upon men. If God 
could make covenants with fallen and guilty Noah, Gen. 
ix. 11, 12, and with Abraham, Gen. xvii. 1-21, why could he 
not make a covenant with unfallen Adam. 

6. By what titles has this covenant been designated and why ? 

1st. It has been called the Covenant of Nature, because it 
expresses the relations which man in his natural state as newly 
created and unfallen sustained to the Creator and Moral Gov- 
ernor of the universe. It is adjusted to the natural or unfallen 
man, just as the Covenant of Grace is adjusted to unnatural or 
fallen man. 2d. It has been called a legal covenant, because 
its "condition" is perfect conformity to the law of absolute 
moral perfection. 3d. It has been called the Covenant of 
Works, because its demands terminate upon man's own being 
and doing. 4th. It has been called a Covenant of Life, because 
the promise attached to well-doing was life. 

It was also essentially a gracious covenant, because although 
every creature is, as such, bound to serve the Creator to the full 
extent of his powers, the Creator can not be bound as a mere 
matter of justice to grant the creature fellowship with himself, 



THE PARTIES AND PROMISE OF THE COVENANT. 311 

or to raise him to an infallible standard of moral power, or to 
crown him with eternal and inalienable felicity. 

7. Who were the parties to this covenant, and how may it he 
"proved that Adam therein represented all his natural descendants ? 

The "parties" were God and Adam, and in him represen- 
tatively all his natural posterity. That he did thus represent 
his descendants is evident — 

1st. From the parallel which is drawn in Scripture between 
Adam in his relation to his descendants, and Christ in his rela- 
tion to his elect. — Rom. v. 12-19, and 1 Cor. xv. 22, 47. 

2d. From the matter of fact that the very penalty denounced 
upon Adam, in case of his disobedience, has taken effect in each 
individual descendant. — Gen. ii. 17; iii. 17, 18. 

3d. From the Biblical declaration that sin, death, and all 
penal evil came into the world through Adam. — Rom. v. 12; 1 
Cor. xv. 22. See Chapter XXL, on " Imputation of Adam's Sin." 

8. What was the promise attached to the Covenant ? 

The promise was " life " — 1st. Because it is necessarily im- 
plied in the penalty of "death," which is expressly denounced. 
If disobedience is linked to death, obedience is linked to life. 
2d. It is clearly taught in other passages of Scripture. — Lev. 
xviii. 5; Neh. ix. 29; Matt. xix. 16, 17; Gal. iii. 12; Rom. x. 5. 

This life was not a mere continuation of the existence with 
which man was endowed by creation as a fallible, moral agent, 
but it was an additional gift of infallible, moral excellence, and 
inalienable blessedness, conditioned upon obedience during a 
probationary period. 1st. This is evident because the reward 
suspended on "conditions" must involve something more than 
had been already granted. 2d. Because man was as created 
liable to sin, and there could be no permanent and secure bliss 
nor high excellence in that condition. 3d. Because the grant- 
ing of the reward necessarily closes the probation, supersedes 
the conditions, and secures inalienable blessedness. 4th. Be- 
cause the angels who had not left their first estate had been 
rewarded with such a life. 5th. Because the life promised must 
correspond to the death threatened, and the death threatened 
involved eternal separation from God and irretrievable destruc- 
tion. 6th. Because the life secured to us by the "Second Adam" 
is of this nature. 

9. What is a "probation"? and when and where had the human 
race its probation under the Covenant of Works ? 

A probation is a trial. The word is variously used to express 
the state, or the time, or the act of trial. The time of probation 



312 COVENANT OF WORKS. 

under such a constitution as the covenant of works must be a 
definitely limited one, because it is self-evident that either the 
infliction of the penalty or the granting of the reward would, 
ipso facto, close the probation forever, and the reward could not 
accrue until the period of probation was completed. 

The probation of the human race took place once for all in 
the trial of Adam in the garden of Eden. That trial resulted 
in loss, and since then the conditions of the covenant being 
impossible, and its penalty having been incurred, any proba- 
tion is of course impossible. Men are now by nature children 
of wrath. 

10. What ivas the condition of that covenant ? and why was the 
command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil selected 
as a test ? 

Perfect conformity of heart, and perfect obedience in act 
to the whole will of God as far as revealed. — Deut. xxvii. 26; 
Gal. hi. 10; James ii. 10. The command to abstain from eating 
the forbidden fruit was only made a special and decisive test 
of that general obedience. . As the matter forbidden was mor- 
ally indifferent in itself, the command was admirably adapted 
to be a clear and naked test of submission to God's absolute 
wall as such. The forbidden tree was doubtless called the tree 
of the knowledge of good and evil, because through the disobe- 
dient eating of it mankind came to the thorough experience 
of the value of goodness and of the infinite evil of sin. 

The obedience required by the law as a rule of duty is of 
course perpetual. But the demand of the law for obedience 
as a covenant condition of life must be limited to the period 
of probation. The term "perpetual" in "Conf. R," Ch. xix., § 1, 
and "L. Cat,," Q. 20, was admitted doubtless by inadvertence. 

11. What icas the nature of the death threatened in case of 
disobedience ? 

This word, "dying thou shaft die," in this connection evi- 
dently includes all the penal consequences of sin. These are — 
1st, death, natural, Eccle. xii. 7 ; 2d, death, moral and spiritual, 
Matt, viii. 22; Eph. ii. 1; 1 Tim. v. 6; Rev. hi. 1; 3d, death, 
eternal, Rev. xx. 6-14 

The instant the law was violated its penalty began to ope- 
rate, although on account of the intervention of the dispensation 
of grace the full effect of the sentence is suspended during the 
present life. The Spirit of God was withdrawn the instant man 
fell, and he at once became spiritually dead, physically mortal, 
and under sentence of death eternal. 

This appears — 1st. From the nature of man as a spiritual 



MEANING OF THE WORD "DEATH." 313 

being. "This is life eternal to know the only true God," etc. — 
John xvii. 3. The instant the soul is cut off from God it 
dies, and his wrath and curse is incurred, and the entire per- 
son, body, and soul, involved in an endless series of evil condi- 
tions. 2d. The Scriptures everywhere declare that the wages 
of sin is death. — Bom. vi. 23; Ezek. xviii. 4. 

The nature of this death is to be determined. (1.) By the 
narrative of the effects produced in our first parents, e. </., shame 
of nakedness, fear, alienation from God, unbelief, and after a 
time dissolution of body, etc. (2.) By the experience of its 
effects in their descendants, e. g., corruption of nature, mortality 
of body, miseries in this life, the second death. 

12. What does C F. Hudson and others hold to he the penalty 
of the Covenant of Works ? 

The annihilationists, of whom C. F. Hudson is one of the 
ablest, hold that the precise thing God said to Adam was 
"Thoti, thyself thine entire person art dust, and to dust thou 
shalt return." They quote Num. xxiii. 10; Judges xvi. 30, etc. 
They hold that death means precisely and only cessation of 
being. They say Adam could have had no other idea asso- 
ciated with the word. Death in this sense had pre-existed in 
the world for innumerable ages among the lower orders of 
creatures, and this was all Adam knew on the subject. 

It is idle for us to speculate as to what the original lan- 
guage God spoke to Adam was, or what the word he used, 
corresponding to our word death, precisely signified and sug- 
gested. Adam probably simply understood God to say that 
if he sinned he should be utterly and irretrievably cut off from 
the divine favor. That is precisely Avhat happened. But the 
facts are clear. 1st. The word death in Scripture is used to 
express not cessation of being but a certain godless condition 
of being. — Rev. hi. 1 ; Eph. ii. 1-5, and v. 14 ; 1 Tim. v. 6 ; Rom. 
vi. 13; xi. 15; John v. 24; vi. 47. 2d. It will be shown below, 
Chapters XXXVII. and XL., that the Scriptures do not allow 
the notion either of the sleep of the soul during the inter- 
mediate state, or of the annihilation of the wicked after the 
judgment. 

13. What is meant by the seal of a covenant, and what was the 
seal of the Covenant of Works ? 

A seal of a covenant is an outward visible sign, appointed 
by God as a pledge of his faithfulness, and as an earnest of the 
blessings promised in the covenant. 

Thus the rainbow is the seal of the covenant made with 
Noah. — Gen. ix. 12, 13. Circumcision was the original seal of 



314 COVENANT OF WORKS. 

the covenant made with Abraham (Gen. xvii. 9-11 ; Rom. iv. 11), 
in the place of which baptism is now institu ted. — Col. ii. 11, 12; 
Gal. iii. 26, 27. The tree of life was the seal of the covenant 
of works, because it was the outward sign and seal of that life 
which was promised in the covenant, and from which man was 
excluded on account of sin, and to which he is restored through 
the second Adam in the Paradise regained. — Compare Gen. ii. 9 ; 
iii. 22, 24, with Rev. ii. 7 ; xxii. 2-14. 

14. What according to Witsius, in his great work "on the Cov- 
enants" are the seals or sacraments of the Covenant of Works ? 

In Vol. I., Ch. vi., Witsius enumerates four — 1st. Paradise. 
2d. The tree of life. 3d. The tree of knowledge of good and 
evil. 4th. The Sabbath. 

These were all doubtless symbolical institutions connected 
with the original divine dispensation of which the Covenant 
of Works was the foundation. But there appears to be no rea- 
son for designating them as belonging to that particular class 
of symbolical institutions called sacraments under the New 
Testament. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil sealed 
death, and therefore could not have been a seal of the Covenant 
of Works which offered life. 

15. In ivhat sense is the Covenant of Works abrogated, and in 
ivhat sense is it in force ? 

This Covenant having been broken by Adam, not one of 
his natural descendants is ever able to fulfil its conditions, and 
Christ having fulfilled all of its conditions in behalf of all his 
own people, salvation is offered now on the condition of faith. 
In this sense the Covenant of Works having been fulfilled by 
the second Adam is henceforth abrogated under the gospel. 

Nevertheless, since it is founded upon the principles of im- 
mutable justice, it still binds all men who have not fled to the 
refuge offered in the righteousness of Christ. It is still true 
that "he that doeth these things shall live by them," and "the 
soul that sinneth it shall die." This law in this sense remains, 
and in consequence of the unrighteousness of men condemns 
them, and in consequence of their absolute inability to fulfil 
it, it acts as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. ' For he 
having fulfilled alike its condition wherein Adam failed, and 
its penalty which Adam incurred, he has become the end of 
this covenant for righteousness to every one that believeth, 
who in him is regarded and treated as one who has fulfilled 
the covenant, and merited its promised reward. 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE NATURE OF SIN AND THE SIN OF ADAM. 

1. What are the only tests by which the answer to the question 
" What is sin ? " can be determined ? 

1st. The word of God. 2d. The intuitive judgments of men. 
The tests of the validity of these intuitions are (a) self-evi- 
dence, (b) universality, (c) necessity. The intuitive judgments 
of men are immediately passed not upon abstract notions nor 
upon general propositions, but upon concrete and individual 
instances. General maxims are generalized by the understand- 
ing from many individual intuitive convictions, and are true or 
false as this process of generalization has been well or badly 
done. The vast amount of confusion and error which prevails 
as to the nature of sin, and as to what comes under the cate- 
gory of sin, is due to crude generalization of general principles 
from individual intuitions, and the indiscriminate application 
of the maxim thus generated beyond the range to which they 
are guaranteed by the intuitions themselves. The maxims 
that all sin consists in voluntary action, and that ability is 
the measure of responsibility, are instances of this abuse. It 
is as absurd to attempt to make the bare understanding settle 
a question belonging only to the moral sense as it would be to 
make the nose decide a question of sound. — See M'Cosh, "In- 
tuitions of the Mind," Book I., ch. ii., §§ 4 and 5, and Book IV., 
ch. ii. §§ 1-3. 

2. What must a true definition of the nature of sin embrace ? 

A definition of sin must — 1st. Include all that either the 
Word of God or an enlightened conscience decides to be sin. 
2d. It must include nothing else. Otherwise in either case it 
is false. 

3. State the definitions of sin given by Titrretin, and by our 
Standards, and by Vitringa. 

Turretin, Locus 9, Quaes. 1. — "Inclinatio, actio, vel omissio 
pugnans cum lege Dei, vel carens rectitudine legali debita 
in esse." 



316 THE NATURE OF SIN AND THE SIN OF ADAM. 

" Conf. Faith," Ch. vi., § 6; " L. Cat," Q. 24; " S. Cat," Q. 14. 
" Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of the 
law of God." 

Campejus Vitringa, Prof. Theo. in Franeker, died 1722. — 
"Forma peccati est disconvenientia, actus, habitus, ant status 
hominis cum divina lege." 

This last excellent definition embraces two constitutent prop- 
ositions. — 1st. Sin is any and every want of conformity with 
the moral law of God, whether of excess or defect, whether of 
omission or commission. 2d. Sin is any want of conformity of 
the moral states and habits as well of the actions of the human 
soul with the law of God ? 

4. What is Law ? And ivhat is tJie Lata of God ? 

The word law is used in a great many and in very different 
senses. It is used by natural philosophers often to express — 
1st. A general fact, e. a., the general fact that all matter at- 
tracts all matter inversely as the square of the distance. 2d. An 
established order of sequence in which certain events occur, as 
the order of the seasons, and any established order of nature. 
3d. The mode of acting of a specific force, as the law of electri- 
cal induction, etc. 4th. A spontaneous order of development, 
as the internal self-acting law of the growth of animals and 
plants from the seed. 

The moral law of God, however, is not an internal, self-reg- 
ulating principle of man's moral nature, like the feigned inner 
light of the Quakers, but an imperial standard of moral excel- 
lence imposed upon mankind from without and from above 
them by the supreme authority of a personal moral Governor 
over personal moral subjects. It involves (a) a certain degree 
of enlightenment as to truth and duty, (b) a rule of action reg- 
ulating the will and binding the conscience, (c) armed with 
sanctions, or imperative motives constraining to obedience. 

5. Prove that sin is any ivant of conformity to " Law." 1 * 

1st. Whenever we sin conscience condemns us for not com- 
ing up to a standard which we intuitively recognize as morally 
obligatory upon us. Conscience implies (a) moral accounta- 
bility, and hence subjection to a moral Governor, and (b) a 
standard to which we ought to be conformed. The conscience 
itself, as the organ of God's law, contains the law written on the 
heart. 

2d. It is implied in all the language used by the Holy Ghost 
in Scripture to express the idea of sin Bfc> DW from nBJy to devi- 



SIN WANT OF CONFORMITY TO LAW OF GOD. 317 

ate from the way. Ktpn to miss the mark, d/iaprdvoo to err, to miss 
the mark, 7tapa(3d6i$ (Gal. iii. 19), a going aside from, a trans- 
gresssion. 

3d. It is explicitly asserted in Scripture, " Every one that 
doeth sin, also doeth rrjv dvojuiav, and sin is drojiia." — 1 John iii. 
4. " For where no law is there is no transgression." — Eom. iv. 15. 

6. Prove that sin is any want of conformity to the moral Law 
of God. 

As above shown this is implied in the action of conscience. 
It testifies to a law imposed upon us by an authority external 
to us, the supreme authority of God. In the absence of all 
supernatural revelation it has led all heathen nations to the 
recognition of the authority of God, or of gods exercising gov- 
ernment, to a belief in rewards and punishments administered 
by God, and hence to expiatory and propitiatory rites. 

It is also asserted by David that sin of any kind is disobe- 
dience and dishonor done to God. — See fifty-first Psalm. 

Hence sin is not a mere violation of the law of our own 
constitution, nor of the system of things, but an offence against 
a personal Lawgiver and moral Governor, who vindicates his 
law with penalties. The soul that sins is always conscious that 
his sin is (a) intrinsically vile and polluting, and (b) that it 
justly deserves punishment and calls down the righteous wrath 
of God. Hence sin carries with it two inalienable characters — 
(a) ill desert, guilt, reatus, (b) pollution, macula. 

7. Show that this Law, any want of conformity to which is sin, 
absolute moral perfection* 

This is necessarily involved in the very essence of moral 
obligation. The very essence of right is that it ought to be. The 
very essence of wrong is that it ought not to be. If any thing 
be indifferent it is not moral, and if it be moral it is a matter 
of obligation. This being of the essence of right it is, of course, 
true of each consistent part as well as of the whole. Any 
degree short of full conformity with the highest right is there- 
fore of the nature of sin. "For whosoever shall keep the whole 
law and yet offend in one point is guilty of all." — James ii. 10. 
The old maxim is true, Omne minus bonum habet rationem malt. 

It evidently follows from this principle that the Romish doc- 
trine of Avorks of Supererogation is absurd as well as wicked, 
since if these works are obligatory they are not supererogatory, 
and if they are not obligatory they are not moral, and if not 
moral they can have no moral value. Hence also all those 
Perfectionists who admit that men are not now able to keep 

* Dr. C. Hodge's Unpublished Lectures. 



318 THE NATURE OF SIN AND THE SIN OF ADAM. 

perfectly the law of absolute moral perfection, while they main- 
tain that Christians may in this life live without sin, obviously 
use incorrect and misleading language. 

8. Prove that any ivant of conformity with this Laio in the 
states and permanent habit of soul, as icell as in its acts, is sin. 

1st. This is proved by the common judgments of all men. 
All judge that the moral state of the heart determines the moral 
character of the actions, and that the moral character of the 
actions discloses the moral state of the heart, and that a man 
whose acts are habitually profane, or malignant, or impure, is 
himself in the permanent state of his heart profane, or malig- 
nant, or impure. 

2d. The same is proved by the common religious experience 
of all Christians. This experience always involves conviction 
of sin, and conviction of sin involves as its most uniform and 
prominent element not merely a conviction that our actions 
fail to come up to the proper standard of excellence, but a 
sense that in the depths of our nature, below and beyond the 
reach of volition, we are spiritually dead and polluted, and im- 
potent and insensible to divine things, and worthy of condem- 
nation therefore. Every Christian has been brought with Paul 
to cry out, "0 wretched man that I am: who shall deliver me 
from the body of this death." — Rom. vii. 24. This finds expres- 
sion, and this principle for which we are contending finds proof 
in all the prayers, supplications, confessions, and in all the 
hymns and devotional literature of Christians of all ages and 
denominations. 

3d. The Scriptures explicitly call the permanent states of 
the soul "sin" when they are not conformed to the law of God. 
Sin and its lusts are said to reign in the mortal body; the mem- 
bers are the instruments of sin ; the unregenerate are the ser- 
vants of sin. — Rom. vi. 12-17. The disposition or permanent 
"tendency" to sin is called "flesh" as opposed to "spirit," 
Gal. v. 17; also "lust," James i. 14, 15; "old Adam," and "body 
of sin," "ignorance," "blindness of heart," "alienation from 
the life of God," and "a condition of being past feeling," Eph. 
iv. 18, 19. 

9. Show that the very first spontaneous motions of concupiscence 
are sin ? 

1st. The heart of the Christian often for the moment spon- 
taneously lusts for evil when the conscience promptly condemns 
and the will forbids and restrains and diverts the attention. 
Although the man does not consent to the sin that is present 
in him, nevertheless the Christian feels that such movements of 



ORIGIN OF SIN. 319 

concupiscence are unholy, and worthy of condemnation, and he 
not only resists them but condemns and loathes himself because 
of them, and seeks to be purged from them at once by the 
atoning blood, and the sanctifying spirit of Jesus. 

2d. Concupiscence is called "sin" in Scripture. "I had not 
known sin, but by the law, for I had not known kitiGv/iiav (con- 
cupiscence) except the law had said thou shaft not £7ti6vju?j6£is." 
Also rd 7taQjjjnara r&v djuapriGov, "the motions of sin," and "the 
law in the members," and "sin that dwelleth in me," that 
worketh without "my consent," which "works all manner of 
concupiscence," etc. — Kom. vii. 5-24. 

10. What is the first great mystery connected with the origin of 
sin ? 

How or why was the existence of sin tolerated in the crea- 
tion of a God at once eternal, self-existent, and infinite in wis- 
dom, power, holiness, and benevolence? 

All the attempted solutions of this enigma which have been 
entertained in our day have been summed up by Prof. Haven 
of Chicago as follows: 

" Either God can not prevent sin, i. e., either (a) in any 
system, (b) in a moral system involving free agency. 

" Or for some reason God does not choose to prevent sin, 
i. e., either because (a) its existence is of itself desirable, (b) or 
though not in itself desirable it is the necessary means of the 
greatest good, or (c) though not in itself tending to good it 
may be overruled to that result, or (d) because, in general terms, 
its permission will involve less evil than its absolute prevention. 

It is obvious (a) that God has permitted sin, and (b) hence 
it was right for him to do so. But why it was right must ever 
remain a mystery demanding submission and defying solution. 

11. What ivas the Manichaian doctrine as to the origin of sin? 

They held the opinion that sin had its ground in some eter- 
nal, self-existent principle independent of God, either matter or 
self-existent devil. This doctrine is inconsistent (a) with the 
independence, infinitude, and sovereignty of God; (b) with the 
nature of sin as essentially the revolt of a created free-will from 
God. Sin is an element of perverted moral agency. To con- 
sider it an attribute of matter is to deny it. All the Christian 
fathers united in opposing Manichasism and in maintaining 
that sin is the product of the free-will of man alone. 

12. State the doctrine of St. Augustine tuith respect to the priva- 
tive nature of sin. 

St. Augustine held — 1st. That God is the creator of all 



320 THE NA TURE OF SIN AND THE SIN OF ADAM. 

entities and the absolutely sovereign Governor of all moral 
agents and of all their actions ; and 2d. That nevertheless God 
is in no sense either the author or the cause of sin. In order 
to reconcile these he held, 3d. That sin is not an entity, but is in 
its essence simply a defect. His dictum, which hence has passed 
into general currency with all classes of theologians, was Nihil 
est malum nisi privatio boni. They have properly distinguished 
between "negation" and "privation." Negation is the absence 
of that which does not belong to the nature of the subject, 
as sight to a stone. Privation is the absence of that which 
belonging to the nature of the subject is necessary to its perfec- 
tion, as sight to a man. 

Sin therefore is privative because it originates in the absence 
of those moral qualities which ought to be present in the states 
and actions of a free, responsible, moral agent. 

It is to be remembered, however, that the inherent depravity 
which " comes from a defective or privative cause " instantly 
assumes a positive form, from the essentially active nature of 
the human soul. In a passive condition of being, a defect might 
remain purely negative. But in a ceaselessly active being, and 
one acting under ceaseless moral obligations, a moral defect must 
instantly become a positive vice. Not to love God is to hate 
him. Not to be in all things conformed to his will is to rebel 
against him, and to break his law at all points. — See Edwards, 
" Original Sin," pt. 4. sec. 2. 

13. What is the Pelagian doctrine as to the nature of sin ? 

The Pelagian view of sin, which has been rejected by all 
branches of the Christian Church, is — 1st. That law can com- 
mand only volitions. 2d. That states of the soul can be com- 
manded only in so far as they are the direct effect of previous 
volitions. 3d. Hence that sin consists simply in acts of volition. 
4th. That whatever a man has not plenary ability to do he is 
under no obligation to do. 5th. That there is no such thing, 
therefore, as innate depravity. 6th. That since a volition to be 
moral or the subject of approbation or of condemnation, must 
be a pure self-decision of the will, it follows that sin is beyond 
the absolute control of God. 

14. In what sense is the dictum that "all sin is voluntary 1 '' true, 
and in what sense false ? 

It all turns upon the sense of the phrase "Voluntary." If 
it be in the Pelagian sense restricted to " acts of volition ; " then 
the dictum that "all sin is voluntary" is false. If, however, it 
is used so as to include the spontaneous dispositions, tenden- 
cies, and affections which constitute the permanent character 



SIN OF ADAM. 321 

of the soul, and which prompt to and decide the nature of the 
volitions, then all sin is voluntary, because all sin has its ground 
and spring in these spontaneous tendencies and dispositions, 
i. e., in the permanent moral states of the soul. 

15. State the peculiarities of the Romish position upon this sub- 
ject, and also that of the Arminian Perfectionists. 

The Roman Church agrees with all Protestants in holding 
that all the habits and permanent dispositions as well as the 
actions of the soul which are not conformed to the law of God 
are sinful. But it is a prominent characteristic of their doc- 
trine that they hold that moral condition of soul which remains 
in the regenerate as the consequence of original sin, and the 
fomes or fuel of actual sin, is not properly of the nature of sin. 
They maintain that the first spontaneous movement of this 
concupiscence is not sin in itself, and not to be treated as such 
— but that it becomes the cause of sin as soon as its solicita- 
tions are entertained and translated into action by the will. — 
"Cat. of Council of Trent," Pt. II., ch, ii., Q. 42. 

The Arminians avail themselves of the same positions when 
defending their doctrine of Christian Perfection. Wesley (in 
"Meth. Doc. Tracts," pp. 294-312) distinguishes between "sin 
properly so called, i. e., voluntary transgression of known law, 
and sin improperly so called, i. e., involuntary transgression of 
law, known or unknown," and declares, "I believe there is no 
such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary trans- 
gressions, which I apprehend to be naturally consequent upon 
the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality." 

The Sin of Adam. 

16. What is the second great mystery connected tuith the origin 
of sin ? 

How could sin originate in the will of a creature created 
with a positively holy disposition ? 

The difficulty is to reconcile understandingly the fact that 
sin did so originate — 

1st. With the known constitution of the human will. If 
the volitions are as the prevalent affections and desires, and 
if the affections and desires excited by outward occasions are 
good or evil, according to the permanent moral state of the 
will, how could a sinful volition originate in a holy will ? or 
how could the permanent state of his soul become spontane- 
ously unholy? 

2d. With universal experience. As it is impossible that a 
sinful desire or volition should originate in the holy will of 
21 



322 THE NATURE OF SIN AND THE SIN OF ADAM. 

God, or in the holy will of saints and angels, or that a truly 
holy affection or volition should originate in the depraved 
wills of fallen men without supernatural regeneration (Luke 
vi. 43-45), how could a sinful volition originate in the holy 
will of Adam ? 

That Adam was created with a holy yet fallible will, and 
that he did fall, are facts established by divine testimony. We 
must believe them, although we can not rationally explain 
them. This is for us impossible — 1st. Because there remains an 
inscrutable element in the human will, adopt whichever theory 
of it we may. 

2d. Because all our reasoning must be based upon con- 
sciousness, and no other man ever had in his consciousness 
the experience of Adam. The origin of our sinful volitions is 
plain enough. But we lack some of the data necessary to ex- 
plain his case. 

In the way of approximation, however, we may observe — 
1st. It is unsound to reason from the independent will of the 
infinite God to the dependent will of the creature. 

2d. The infallibility of saints and angels is not inherent, 
but is a superinduced confirming grace of God. They are not 
in a state of probation. Adam was — his will was free, but 
not confirmed. 

3d. The depraved will of man can not originate holy affec- 
tions and volitions, because the presence of a positively holy 
principle is necessary to constitute them holy. But, on the 
other hand, there were already in the holy will of Adam many 
principles morally indifferent, in themselves neither good nor 
bad, and becoming sinful only when, in default of the control 
of reason and conscience, they prompt to their indulgence 
in ways forbidden by God; e. g., admiration and appetite for 
the fruit, and desire for knowledge. The sin commenced the 
moment that, under the powerful persuasion of Satan, these 
two motives were dwelt upon in spite of the prohibition, and 
thus allowed to become so prevalent in the soul as temporarily 
to neutralize reverence for God's authority, and fear of his 
threatening. 

4th. Adam, although endowed with a holy disposition, was 
inexperienced in the assaults of temptation. 

5th. He was assailed through the morally indifferent princi- 
ples of his nature by a vastly superior intelligence and char- 
acter, to whom, in the highest sense, the origin of all sin must 
be referred. 

17. What appears from the history of the Fall to have been the 
precise nature of the first sin of Adam ? 



THE EFFECT OF ADAM'S SIN ON HIMSELF. 323 

It appears from the record (Gen. iii. 1-6) that the initial 
influences inducing our first parents, in their first transgression, 
were in themselves considered morally indifferent. These were 
— 1st. Natural appetite for the attractive fruit. 2d. Natural de- 
sire for knowledge. 3d. The persuasive power of Satan upon 
Eve, including the known influence of a superior mind and 
will. 4th. The persuasive power of both Satan and Eve upon 
Adam. Their dreadful sin appears to have been essentially — 
1st. Unbelief, they virtually made God a liar. 2d. Deliberate 
disobedience, they set up their will as a law in place of his. 

18. What relation. did God sustain to Adams sin? 

Concerning the relation sustained by God to the sin of Adam 
all we know is — 1st. God created Adam holy, with all natural 
powers necessary for accountable agency. 2d. He rightfully 
withheld from him, during his probation, any higher supernat- 
ural influence necessary to render him infallible. 3d. He neither 
caused nor approved Adam's sin. 4th. He sovereignly decreed 
to permit him to sin, thus determining that he should sin as 
he did. 

19. What ivas the effect of Adams sin upon himself? 

1st. In the natural relation which Adam sustained to God 
as the subject of his moral government, his sin must have in- 
stantly had the effect of (1) displeasing and alienating God, 
and (2) of depraving his own soul. 

2d. In the covenant relation which Adam sustained to God 
the penalty of the covenant of works was incurred, i. e., death, 
including, (1) mortality of body, (2) corruption of soul, (3) sen- 
tence of eternal death. 

20. In what sense did he become totally depraved, and how could 
total depravity result from one sin ? 

By the affirmation that total depravity was the immediate 
result of Adam's first sin, it is not meant that he became as 
bad as he could be, or even as corrupt as the best of his unre- 
generate descendants; but it is meant — 1st. His apostasy from 
God was complete. God demands perfect obedience. Adam 
was now a rebel in arms. 

2d. That the favor and communion of God, the sole condition 
of his spiritual life, was withdrawn. 

3d. A schism was introduced into the soul itself. The pain- 
ful reproaches of conscience were excited, and could never 
be allayed without an atonement. This led to fear of God, 
distrust, prevarication, and, by necessary consequence, to in- 
numerable other sins. 



324 THE NATURE OF SIN AND THE SIN OF ADAM. 

4th. Thus the whole nature became depraved. The will 
being at war with the conscience, the understanding became 
darkened; the conscience, in consequence of constant outrage 
and neglect, became seared; the appetites of the body inordi- 
nate, and its members instruments of unrighteousness. 

5th. There remained in man's nature no recuperative princi- 
ple ; he must go on from worse to worse, unless God interpose. 

Thus the soul of man being essentially active, although 
one sin did not establish a confirmed habit, it did alienate God 
and work confusion in the soul, and thus lead to an endless 
course of sin. 

The Consequences of Adam's sin to his posterity are — 1st. The 
judicial charging of the legal responsibility of that sin upon 
all at their creation whom he represented in the Covenant of 
Works. 2d. The consequent birth of each of his descendants 
in a state of exclusion from the life-giving communion of the 
divine Spirit. 3d. The consequent loss of original righteous- 
ness, and the inherent and prevailing tendency to sin which is 
the invariable moral condition of each of his descendants from 
birth. 4th. The absolute moral inability of men to change their 
natures or to fulfil their obligations. 

For reasons which will appear subsequently, the subjects 
connected with man's natural moral corruption and impotency, 
are discussed before the subject of Imputation, or the reason 
and method of the passing over of the consequences of Adam's 
sin from him to his descendants. 



CHAPTER XIX. 

ORIGINAL SIN.—{Peccatum Habituale.) 

1. How is original sin to he defined ? 

See "Confession of Faith," Chapter vi. ; U L. Cat," Questions 
25, 26; "S. Cat," Question 18. 

The phrase, original sin, is used sometimes to include the 
judicial imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin, as well as the 
hereditary moral corruption, common to all his descendants, 
which is one of the consequences of that imputation. More 
strictly, however, the phrase original sin designates only the 
hereditary moral corruption common to all men from birth. 

In the definition of this doctrine we deny — 

1st That this corruption is in any sense physical, that it 
inheres in the essence of the soul, or in any of its natural fac- 
ulties as such. 

2d. That it consists primarily in the mere supremacy of the 
sensual part of our nature. It is a depraved habit or bias of 
will. 

3d. That it consists solely in the absence of holy dispositions, 
because, from the inherent activity of the soul, sin exhibits 
itself from the beginning in the way of a positive proneness to 
evil. 

On the other hand, we affirm — 

1st That original sin is purely moral, being the innate 
proneness of the will to evil. 

2d. That having its seat in the will averse to the holy law 
of God, it biasses the understanding, and thus deceives the 
conscience, leads to erroneous moral judgments, to blindness of 
mind, to deficient and perverted sensibility in relation to moral 
objects, to the inordinate action of the sensuous nature, and thus 
to corruption of the entire soul. 

3d. Thus it presents two aspects: (1.) The loss of the original 
righteous habit of will. (2.) The presence of a positively un- 
righteous habit. 



326 ORIGINAL SIX. 

4th. Yet from the fact that this innate depravity does 
embrace a positive disposition to evil, it does not follow that a 
positive evil quality has been infused into the soul. Because, 
from the essentially active nature of the soul, and from the 
essential nature of virtue, as that which obliges the will, it 
evidently follows that moral indifference is impossible; and so 
that depravity, which President Edwards says " comes from a 
defective or privative cause," instantly assumes a positive form. 
Not to love God is to rebel against him, not to obey virtue is 
to trample it under foot. Self-love soon brings us to fear, then 
to hate the vindicator of righteousness. — Edwards on " Original 
Sin," Part IV., sec. 2. 

2. Why is this sin called original? 

Not because it belongs to the original constitution of our 
nature as it came forth from the hand of God, but because, 1st, 
it is derived by ordinary generation from Adam, the original 
root of the human race ; and 2d, it is the inward root or origin 
of all the actual sins that defile our lives. 

This sin is also technically styled Peccatum Habituate, or the 
sin which consists in a morally corrupt habit or state of soul, 
in distinction from imputed sin and actual sin. 

3. How may it be 'proved that the doctrine of original sin does 
not involve the corruption of the substance of the soul ? 

It is the universal judgment of men that there are in the 
soul, besides its essence and its natural faculties, certain habits, 
innate or acquired, which qualify the action of those faculties, 
and constitute the character of the man. Those habits, or inhe- 
rent dispositions which determine the affections and desires of 
the will, govern a man's actions, and, when good, are the sub- 
jects of moral approbation, and, when evil, the subjects of moral 
disapprobation on the part of all men. An innate moral habit 
of soul, e. g., original sin, is no more a physical corruption than 
any acquired habit, intellectual or moral, is a physical change. 

Besides this, the Scriptures distinguish between the sin and 
the agent in a way which proves that the sinful habit is not 
something consubstantial with the sinner, Eom. vii. 17; "sin 
that dwelleth in me," Heb. xii. 1, etc. 

4. Hoiu can it be shown that original sin does not consist in dis- 
ease, or merely in the supremacy of the sensuous part of our nature ? 

While it is true that many sins have their occasions in the 
inordinate appetites of the body, yet it is evident the original 
or root of sin can not be in them — 

1st. From the very nature of sin it must have its seat in the 



CORRUPTION OF THE WHOLE NATURE. 327 

moral state of the voluntary principle. Disease, or any form of 
physical disorder, is not voluntary, and therefore not an element 
of moral responsibility. It is, moreover, the obligation of the 
will to regulate the lower sensuous nature, and sin must orig- 
inate in the failure of those moral affections which would have 
been supreme if they still continued to reign in the will. 

2d. From the fact that the most heinous sins are destitute of 
any sensuous element, e. g., pride, anger, malice, and aversion 
from God. 

5. How can it he proved, that this innate disposition or habit of 
sold, ivhich leads to sinful action, is itself sin ? 

1st. This innate habit of soul is a state of the will, and it is 
an ultimate principle that all the states as well as acts of the 
will related to the law of conscience are moral, i. e., either virtuous 
or vicious. — See above, Chapter XV., Questions 9 and 10. 

2d. These permanent habits or states of the will constitute 
the moral character of the agent, which all men regard as the 
proper subject of praise or blame. 

3d. This inherent disposition to sinful action is called "sin" 
in Scripture. — Rom. vi. 12, 14, 17; vii. 5-17. It is called "flesh" 
as opposed to "spiritual," Gal. v. 17, 24; also "lust," James i. 
14, 15; and "old Adam" and "body of sin," Rom. vi. 6; also 
"ignorance," "blindness of heart," "alienation from the life of 
God," and a condition of "being past feeling," Eph. iv. 18, 19. 

6. How can it be shown that original sin does not consist simply 
in the want of original righteousness ? 

1st. It follows from the inherent activity of the human soul, 
and from the inherently obliging power of moral right, that the 
absence of right dispositions immediately leads to the formation 
of positively sinful dispositions. Not to love God is to hate him, 
not to obey him is to disobey. Disobedience leads to fear, to 
falsehood, and to every form of sin. — See above, Question 1. 

2d. As a matter of fact, innate depravity exhibits its pos- 
itive character by giving birth to sins, involving positive vi- 
ciousness in the earliest stages of accountable agency, as pride, 
malice, etc. 

3d. The Scriptures assign it a positive character, when they 
apply to it such terms as "flesh," "concupiscence," "old man," 
"law in the members," "body of sin," "body of death," "sin 
taking occasion," " deceived me," and " Avrought all manner of 
concupiscence." — Rom. vii. 

7. Hoiv may it be shown that it affects the entire man ? 
Original sin has its seat in the will, and primarily consists 



328 ORIGINAL SIN. 

in that proneness to unlawful dispositions and affections which 
is the innate habit of the human soul. But the several facul- 
ties of the human soul are not separate agents. The one soul 
acts in each function as an indivisible agent, its several facul- 
ties or powers after their kind mutually qualifying one another. 
When the soul is engaged in -understanding an object, or an 
aspect of any object, e. g., mathematics, with which its affec- 
tions are not concerned, then its action has no moral element. 
But when it is engaged in understanding an object with respect 
to which its depraved affections are perversely interested, its 
action must be biassed. The consequence, therefore, of the sinful 
bias of the will in its controlling influence over the exercises of 
the soul, in all its functions, will be — 

1st. The understanding, biassed by the perverted affections, 
acting concurrently with the moral sense in forming moral 
judgments, will lead to erroneous judgments, to a deceiving 
conscience, and to general "blindness of mind" as to moral 
subjects. 

2d. The emotions and sensibilities which accompany the 
judgments of conscience in approving the good and in con- 
demning the wrong, by repeated outrage and neglect, will be 
rendered less lively, and thus lead to a seared conscience, and 
general moral insensibility. 

3d. In a continued course of sinful action the memory will 
become defiled with its stores of corrupt experiences, from which 
the imagination also must draw its materials. 

4th. The body in its turn will be corrupted. (1.) Its natural 
appetites will become inordinate in the absence of proper con- 
trol. (2.) Its active powers will be used as "instruments of 
unrighteousness unto sin." 

5th. The Scriptures teach — (1.) That the understanding of 
the " natural man " is depraved as well as his affections. — 
1 Cor. ii. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. iv. 18; Col. i. 21. (2.) That 
regeneration involves illumination as well as renewal of the 
heart.— Acts xxvi. 18; Eph. i. 18; v. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 9. (3.) That 
truth addressed to the understanding is the great instrument 
of the Spirit in regeneration and sanctification. — John xvii. 17 ; 
James i. 18. 

8. What is meant by tJie affirmation that man by nature is 
totally depraved ? 

By this orthodox phrase it is not to be understood, 1st, that 
the depraved man has not a conscience. The virtuousness of 
an agent does not consist in his having a conscience, but in 
the conformity of the dispositions and affections of his will to 
the law of which conscience is the organ. Even the devils 



TOTAL DEPRAVITY, ITS NATURE AND EVIDENCE. 329 

and lost souls retain their sense of right and wrong, and those 
vindicatory emotions with which conscience is armed. 

Or, 2d, that unregenerate men, possessing a natural con- 
science, do not often admire virtuous character and actions in 
others. 

Or, 3d, that they are incapable of disinterested affections and 
actions in their various relations with their fellow-men. 

Or, 4th, that any man is as thoroughly depraved as it is pos- 
sible for him to become, or that each man has a disposition 
inclined to every form of sin. 

But it is meant — 1st. That virtue consisting in the con- 
formity of the dispositions of the will with the law of God, and 
the very soul of virtue consisting in the allegiance of the soul to 
God, every man by nature is totally alienated in his governing 
disposition from God, and consequently his every act, whether 
morally indifferent, or conformed to subordinate principles of 
right, is vitiated by the condition of the agent as a rebel. 

2d. That this state of will leads to a schism in the soul, and 
to the moral perversion of all the faculties of soul and body 
(see preceding question.) 

3d. The tendency of this condition is to further corruption 
in endless progression in every department of our nature, and 
this deterioration would, in every case, be incalculably more 
rapid than it is, if it were not for the supernatural restraints of 
the Holy Ghost. 

4th. There remains no recuperative element in the soul. 
Man can only and forever become worse without a miraculous 
recreation. 

9. What proof of the doctrine of original sin may be derived 
from the history of the Fall ? 

God created man in his own image, and pronounced him as 
a moral agent to be very good. He threatened him with death 
in the very day that he should eat the forbidden fruit, and only 
in the sense of spiritual death was that threat literally fulfilled. 
The spiritual life of man depends upon communion with God; 
but God drove him at once forth in anger from his presence. 
Consequently the present spiritual state of man is declared to be 
" death," the very penalty threatened. — Eph. ii. 1 ; 1 John iii., 14. 

10. What is the account ichich the Scriptures give of human 
nature, and how can the existence of an innate hereditary depravity 
be thence inferred ? 

The Scriptures represent all men as totally alienated from 
God, and morally depraved in their understandings, hearts, 
wills, consciences, bodies, and actions. — Rom. iii. 10-23 ; viii. 7 ; 



330 • ORIGINAL SIN. 

Job xiv. 4; xv. 14; Gen. vi. 5; viii. 21; Matt. xv. 19; Jer. xvii. 
9 ; Is. i. 5, 6. This depravity of man is declared to be, 1st, of 
the act, 2d, of the heart, 3d, from birth and by nature, 4th, of 
all men without exception. — Ps. li. 5; John iii. 6; Eph. ii. 3; 
Ps. lviii. 3. 

11. State the evidence for the truth of this doctrine afforded by 
Kom. v. 12-21. 

Paul here proves that the guilt, — legal obligation to suffer 
the penalty, — of Adam's sin is imputed to us, by the unquestion- 
able fact that the penalty of the law which Adam broke has 
been inflicted upon all. But that penalty was all penal evil, 
death physical, spiritual, eternal. Original sin, therefore, to- 
gether with natural death, is in this passage assumed as an 
undeniable fact, upon which the apostle constructs his argu- 
ment for the imputation of Adam's sin. 

12. How is the truth of this doctrine established by the fact of 
the general prevalence of sin ? 

All men, under all circumstances, in every age of the world, 
and under whatever educational influences they may be brought 
up, begin to sin uniformly as soon as they enter upon moral 
agency. A universal effect must have a universal cause. Just 
as we judge that a man is by nature an intelligence, because 
the actions of all men involve an element of intelligence, so we 
as certainly judge that man is by nature depraved, because all 
men act sinfully. 

13. If Adam sinned, though free from any corruption of nature, 
hoiv does the fact that his posterity sin prove that their nature is 
corrupt ? 

The fact that Adam sinned proves that a moral agent may 
be at once sinless and fallible, and that such a being, left to 
himself, may sin, but with respect to his posterity the question 
is, what is the universal and uniform cause that every indi- 
vidual always certainly begins to sin as soon as he begins to 
act as a moral agent ? The question in the one case is, Hoiv 
could such an one sin ? but in the other, Why do all certainly sin 
from the beginning ? 

14. By ivhat other objections do Pelagians and others attempt 
to avoid the force of the argument from the universality of sin ? 

1st. Those who maintain that the liberty of indifference is 
essential to responsible agency, and that volitions are not de- 
termined by the precedent moral state of the mind, attribute 



DOCTRINE PROVED. 331 

all sinful actions to the fact that the will of man is uncondi- 
tioned, and insist that his acting as he acts is an ultimate fact. 

In answer, we acknowledge that a man always wills as he 
pleases, but the question is, Why does he always certainly please 
to ivill xorong ? An indifferent cause can not account for a uni- 
form fact. The doctrine of original sin merely assigns the de- 
praved character of the will itself as the uniform cause of the 
uniform fact. 

2d. Others attempt to explain the facts by the universal 
influence of sinful example. 

We answer: (1.) Children uniformly manifest depraved 
dispositions at too early a period to admit of that sin being 
rationally attributed to the influence of example. (2.) Children 
manifest depraved dispositions who have been brought up from 
birth in contact with such influences only as would incline them 
to holiness. 

3d. Others, again, attempt to explain the facts by referring 
to the natural order in the development of our faculties, e. g., 
first the animal, then the intellectual, then the moral : thus the 
lower, by anticipating, subverts the higher. 

For answer, see above, Question 4. Besides, while this is 
an imperfect explanation, it is yet a virtual admission of the 
fact of innate hereditary depravity. Such an order of devel- 
opment, leading to such uniform consequences, is itself a total 
corruption of nature. 

15. What argument for the doctrine of original sin may be 
derived from the universality of death? 

The penalty of the law was death, including death spiritual, 
physical, and moral. Physical death is universal ; eternal death, 
temporarily suspended for Christ's sake, is denounced upon all 
the impenitent. As one part of the penalty has taken effect, 
even upon infants, who have never been guilty of actual trans- 
gression, we must believe the other part to have taken effect 
likewise. Brutes, who also suffer and die, are not moral agents, 
nor were they ever embraced in a covenant of life, and there- 
fore their case, although it has its own peculiar difficulties, is 
not analogous to that of man. Geology affirms that brutes 
suffered and died in successive generations before the creation 
and apostasy of man. This is at present one of the unsolved 
questions of God's providence. — See Hugh Miller's "Testimo- 
nies of the Rocks." 

16. How may it be proved by what the Scriptures say concern- 
ing regeneration ? 

The Scriptures declare — 



332 ORIGINAL SIN. 

1st. That regeneration is a radical change of the moral char- 
acter, wrought by the Holy Ghost in the exercise of supernat- 
ural power. It is called "a new creation 1 '; the regenerated 
are called " God's workmanship, created unto good works," etc. 
Ezek. xxxvi. 26; Eph. i. 19; ii. 5, 10; iv. 24; 1 Pet. i. 23; James 
i. 18. 

2d. Regeneration is declared to be necessary absolutely and 
universally. — John iii. 3; 2 Cor. v. 17. 

17. How may it be proved from what tlve Scriptures say of 
redemption ? 

The Scriptures assert of redemption — 

1st. As to its nature, that the design and effect of Christ's 
sacrifice is to deliver, by means of an atonement, all his people 
from the power as well as from the guilt of sin. — Eph. v. 25-27; 
Titus ii. 14; Heb. ix. 12-14; xiii. 12. 

2d. As to its necessity, that it was absolutely necessary for 
all — for infants who never have committed actual sin, as well 
as for adults. — Acts iv. 12; Eom. iii. 25, 26; Gal. ii. 21 and iii. 
21, 22; Matt. xix. 14; Rev. i. 5; v. 9. 

Some have essayed to answer, that Christ only redeemed 
infants from the "liability to sin." But redemption being an 
atonement by blood, the "just for the unjust," if infants be not 
sinners they can not be redeemed. A sinless liability to sin is 
only a misfortune, and can admit of no redemption. — See Dr. 
Taylor's " Concio ad Clerum " (New Haven, 1828), pp. 24, 25 ; 
also Harvey's Review of the same (Hartford, 1829), p. 19. 

18. State the evidence afforded by infant baptism. 

Baptism, as circumcision, is an outward rite, signifying the 
inward grace of spiritual regeneration and purification. — Mark 
i. 4; John iii. 5; Titus iii. 5; Deut. x. 16; Rom. ii. 28, 29. Both 
of these rites were designed to be applied to infants. The ap- 
plication of the sign would be both senseless and profane if 
infants did not need, and were not capable of the thing signified. 

19. If God is the author of our nature, and our nature is sinful, 
how can toe avoid the conclusion that God is the author of sin ? 

That conclusion would be unavoidable if, 1st, sin was an 
essential element of our nature, or if, 2d, it inhered in that na- 
ture originally, as it came from God. 

But we know, 1st, that sin originated in the free act of man, 
created holy, yet fallible ; 2d, that entire corruption of nature 
sprang from that sin ; and, 3d, that in consequence of sin God 
has justly withdrawn the conservative influences of his Holy 



SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. 333 

Spirit, and left men to the natural and penal consequences of 
their sin. — See Calvin's "Instit.," Lib. II., Chap. I., sees. 6 and 11. 

20. How can this doctrine be reconciled with the liberty of man 
and his responsibility for his acts? 

1st. Consciousness affirms that a man is always responsible 
for his free actions, and that his act is always free when he 
wills as, upon the whole, he prefers to will. 2d. Original sin 
consists in corrupt dispositions, and, therefore, in every sin a 
man acts freely, because he acts precisely as he is disposed to 
act. 3d. Consciousness affirms that inability is not inconsistent 
with responsibility. The inherent habit or disposition of the 
will determines his action, but no man, by a mere choice or 
volition, can change his disposition. — See Chap. XVIIL, Ques- 
tions 4 and 25. 

21. How is this corruption of nature propagated? 
See below, under Chapter XXL 

22. In what sense may sin be the punishment of sin? 

1st. In the way of natural consequence (1) in the interior 
working of the soul itself, in the derangement of its powers ; 
(2) in the entangled relations of the sinner with God and his 
fellowmen. 

2d. In the way of judicial abandonment. Because of sin 
God withdraws his Holy Spirit, and further sin is the conse- 
quence. — Rom. i. 24-28. 

23. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the sin against the 
Holy Ghost? 

See Matt. xii. 31, 32; Markiii. 29, 30; Heb. vi. 4^6; x. 26, 27; 
1 John v. 16. 

These passages appear to teach that this sin consists in the 
malicious rejection of the blood of Christ, and of the testimony 
of the Holy Ghost against evidence and conviction. It is called 
the sin against the Holy Ghost because he is immediately pres- 
ent in the heart of the sinner, and his testimony and influence 
is directly rejected and contemptuously resisted. It is unpar- 
donable, not because its guilt transcends the merit of Christ, 
or the state of the sinner transcends the renewing power of the 
Holy Ghost, but because it consists in the final rejection of 
these, and because at this limit God has sovereignly staid his 
grace. 

24. What are the main positions involved in the Pelagian doc- 
trine of original sin ? 



334 ORIGINAL SIN. 

The system called Pelagian originated with Pelagius in his 
controversies with St. Augustine in the beginning of the fifth 
century, and was afterwards completely developed by the disci- 
ples of Faustus and Laslius Socinus in the sixteenth century, 
is embodied in the Eacovian Catechism, and prevails among 
the English and American Unitarians of the eighteenth and 
nineteenth centuries. 

It embraces the following points : 1st. Adam's sin affected 
himself alone. 2d. Infants are born in the same moral state 
in which Adam was created. 3d. Every man possesses plenary 
ability to sin or to repent and obey whenever he will. 4th. re- 
sponsibility is in exact proportion to ability ; and God's demands 
are adjusted to the various capacities (moral as well as consti- 
tutional) and circumstances of men. 

25. What are the main positions involved in the Semipelagian 
doctrine ? 

According to the critical estimate of Wiggers in his " Hist. 
Present, of Augustinianism and Pelagianism," Pelagianism re- 
gards man as morally and spiritually well. Semipelagianism 
regards him as sick. Augustinianism regards him as dead. 

The current positions of Semipelagianism during the middle 
ages were — 1st. Denial of the imputation of the guilt of Adam's 
sin. 2d. Acknowledgment of a morbid condition of man's moral 
nature from birth by inheritance from Adam. 3d. Which mor- 
bid condition is not itself sin but the certain cause of sin. 4th. 
It involves the moral powers of the soul to such an extent that 
no man can fulfil the requirements either of the law or of the 
gospel without divine assistance. Man, however, has the power 
to begin to act aright, when God seeing his effort, and knowing 
that otherwise it would be fruitless, gives him the gracious help 
he needs. 

The doctrine of the Arminians, and the "Synergism" of 
Melanchthon amount practically to very much the same thing 
with the statements just made. The main difference is that 
the Semipelagians held that man can and must begin the work 
of repentance and obedience when God instantly co-operates 
with him. While the Arminians and Synergists held that man 
is so far depraved that he needs grace to dispose and enable 
him to begin as well as to continue and to succeed in the work, 
but that all men as a matter of fact have the same common 
grace acting upon them, which grace effects nothing until the 
man voluntarily co-operates with it, when it becomes effica- 
cious through that co-operation. 

The Greek Church, which occupies the same general posi- 
tion as to original sin and grace, holds — 1st. Original sin is 



VARIOUS VIEWS. 335 

not voluntary and therefore not true sin. 2d. The influence 
of Adam extends only to the sensuous, and not to the rational 
nor moral nature of his descendants, and hence it extends to 
their will only through the sensuous nature. 3d. Infants are 
guiltless because they possess only a physical propagated na- 
ture. 4th. The human will takes the initiative in regeneration 
but needs divine assistance. This is Semipelagianism. While 
the corresponding Arminian position is that grace takes the in- 
itiative in regeneration but depends for its effect upon human 
co-operation. 

26. What is the New Haven view on this subject ? 

Dr. Nathaniel W. Taylor, of New Haven, the prince of 
American new school theology, taught that sin consists solely 
in acts of the will. That " original sin is man's own act, con- 
sisting in a free choice of some object rather than God as his 
chief good." He includes in this definition the permanent gov- 
erning preference of the will, which determines special and 
transient acts of choice; which preference is formed by each 
human being as soon as he becomes a moral agent, and is uni- 
formly a preference of some lesser good in place of God. He 
maintains also that the nature of man, in the condition in 
which it comes into being, in consequence of Adam's fall, is 
the occasion, not the cause, of all men invariably making a 
wrong moral preference, and consequently original sin is by 
nature in the sense that the will enacts it freely though uni- 
formly as occasioned by nature, yet that the nature itself, or 
its inherent tendency to occasion sin, is not itself sin, or ill- 
deserving. — See "Concio ad Clerum," New Haven, 1828, and 
Harvey's Eeview thereof. 

27. What is the Romish doctrine as to the change effected in the 
moral nature of man by the fall ? 

See below the public statements of the various churches. 

28. What distinction do the Romanists make between mortal and 
venial sins ? 

By mortal sins they mean those that turn away the soul 
from God, and forfeit baptismal grace. By venial sins they 
mean those which only impede the course of the soul to God. 
See below Bellarmin, quoted under "Authoritative Statement 
of Church Doctrine," etc. 

The objections are — 1st. This distinction is never made in 
the Scriptures. 2d. Except for the sacrifice of Christ, every 
sin is mortal. — James ii. 10; Gal. iii. 10. 



336 ORIGINAL SIN. 



The Authoeitative Statements oe Chukch Docteine. 

Eomish Doctetne. — "Council of Trent," Sess. v. Can. 2. — "If any- 
one shall assert that the apostasy of Adam injured himself alone and not 
his posterity; and that he lost the sanctity and righteousness received 
from God, for himself alone and not also for us, his posterity; or that 
the stain which results from the sin of disobedience, death, and physical 
evils only have overflowed over the whole human race, and not also sin 
which is the disease of the soul — anathema sit." lb., Sess. vi. Cap. 1. 
"The Holy Synod declares that in order properly to understand the 
doctrine of justification it is necessary that every one should acknowl- 
edge and confess that since all men lost their innocency in the apostasy 
of Adam, so that .... they are servants of sin, under the power 
of the devil and of death . . . nevertheless in them free will is by no 
means extinct, although it is weakened as to its strength and biassed." 
lb., Sess. vi. Can. 5. — "If any one shall say that the free-will of man has 

been lost and extinguished in consequence of the sin of Adam 

anathema sit." Can. 7. — "If any one shall say that all works performed 
by a man anterior to justification (regeneration), from whatever reason 
performed, are true sins which merit the hatred of God, or that the more 
vehemently one may strive to dispose himself to grace, only the more 
grievously he sins — anathema sit. " 

Bellarmin; "Amiss. Gratia" iii. 1. — "The penalty which properly 
stands over against the first sin, is the loss of original righteousness and 
of the supernatural gifts with which God had furnished our nature. "Be 
Gratia primi horn.," 1. — "They (the Catholics) teach that, through the 
sin of Adam the whole man was truly deteriorated, but that he has not 
lost free will nor any other of the dona naiuralia, bat only the dona super- 
naturalia" lb., c. 5. — "Wherefore the state of man since the fall of 
Adam does not differ more from his state in puris naturalibus (i. e., as 
created and antecedent to his endowment with the dona supernaiuralla, 
see Statement of Eomish Doctrine end of Ch. XVI.) than a man robbed 
of his clothes differs from one originally naked, neither is human nature 
any worse (if you subtract original guilt) nor does it labor under greater 
ignorance and infirmity, than it was and did as created in puris natural- 
ibus. Whence it follows that corruption of nature does not result from 
the loss of any gift, nor from the accession of any evil quality, but only 
from the loss of the supernatural gift because of the sin of Adam. " 

"Amiss. Gra." v. 5. — " The question between us and our adversaries 
is not whether human nature has been grievously depraved through the 
sin of Adam. For that we freely confess. Neither is the question 
whether this depravity pertains in any manner to original sin, so that 
it may be spoken of as the material of that sin. But the whole contro- 
versy is whether that corruption of nature and especially concupiscence 
per se and of its own nature, as it is found in the baptized and justified, 
is properly original sin. This the Catholics deny." 

Lutheean Docteine. — "Formula Concordia?" p. 640. — "(It is to be 
believed) — 1st. That this hereditary evil is fault or guilt (ill-desert) by 
which on account of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, we all are made 
subject to the wrath of God, and are by nature children of wrath, as the 
Apostle testified (Kom. v. 12, sqq., Eph. ii. 3). 2d. That there is through 
all a total want, defect, and privation of that original righteousness con- 
created in Paradise, or of that image of God in which man in the be- 
ginning was created in truth, holiness, and righteousness ; and there 
is at the same time that impotency and incapacity, that weakness and 



AUTHORITATIVE CREED STATEMENTS. 337 

stupidity, by which man is rendered utterly incapable of all things 
divine or spiritual. . . . 3d. Moreover that original sin in human 
nature does not only involve the total loss and absence of all good in 
matters spiritual and pertaining to God; but that also in the place of the 
lost likeness to God there is in man an inward, most evil, profound (like 
an abyss), inscrutable, and ineffable corruption of the whole nature and 
of all the powers, and primarily in the principle and superior faculties 
of the soul, in the mind, intellect, heart, and will. 

lb., p. 645. — "But although this original sin infects and corrupts the 
whole nature of man, as a kind of spiritual poison and leprosy (as Dr. 
Luther says), so that now in our corrupted nature it is not possible to 
show to the eye these two apart, the nature alone, or the original sin 
alone; nevertheless that corrupt nature, or substance of the corrupt man, 
the body and soul, or the man himself as created by God in whom the 
original sin dwells, is not one and the same with that original sin which 
dwells in the nature or essence of man and corrupts it; just as in the 
body of a leper, the leprous body and the leprosy itself, which is in 
the body, is not one and the same. 

Beeobmed Doctrine. — "Belgic Confession ," Art. 15. — " (Peccatum 
originis) is that corruption of the whole nature and that hereditary vice, 
by which even themselves in their mothers' wombs are polluted, and 
which, as a root, produces every kind of sin in man, and is therefore 
so base and execrable in the sight of God, that it suffices to the condem- 
nation of the human race." 

'■'■Gallic Con/.," Art. 11. — "We believe that this vice (originis) is true 
sin, which makes all and every man, not even excepting little infants, 
hitherto hiding in the womb of their mothers, deserving (reos) before 
God of eternal death." 

"Thirty-nine Articles of Ch. of Eng." Art. 9. — " (Original or birth sin) 
is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is 
engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone 
from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so 
that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every 
person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation." 

Bemonstrant Doctbine. — "Apol. Conf. Remonstrant., p. 84. — "They 
(the Eemonstrants) do not regard original sin as sin properly so called, 
nor as an evil which as a penalty, in the strict sense of that word, passes 
over from Adam upon his posterity, but as an evil, infirmity, or vice, or 
whatever name it may be designated by, which is propagated from Adam, 
deprived of original righteousness, to his posterity. 

Limborch "Theol. Christ." iii. 3, 4. — "We confess also that infants 
are born less pure than Adam was created, and with a certain propensity 
to sinning, but this they receive not so much from Adam, as from their 
immediate parents, since if it were from Adam, it ought to be equal in 
all men. But now it is in the highest degree unequal, and ordinarily 
children are inclined to the sins of their parents. 

Soctnian Doctbine. — "Racovian Catechism," p. 294. — "And the fall 
of Adam, since it was one act, could not have had the power of corrupt- 
ing the nature of Adam himself, much less that of his posterity. We do 
not deny, however, that from the constant habit of sinning, the nature 
of man has become infected with a certain fall and excessive proclivity 
to sinning. But we deny that this is per se sin, or of that nature." 



CHAPTER XX. 

INABILITY. 

1. State the three main elements involved in the consequences 
entailed by the sin of Adam upon his 'posterity. 

These are — 1st. The guilt, or just penal responsibility of 
Adam's first sin or apostatizing act, which is imputed or judi- 
cially charged upon his descendants, whereby every child is 
born into the world in a state of antenatal forfeiture or con- 
demnation. 2d. The entire depravity of our nature, involving 
a sinful innate disposition inevitably leading to actual trans- 
gression. 3d. The entire inability of the soul to change its own 
nature, or to do any thing spiritually good in obedience to the 
divine law. 

2. What three great types of doctrine on the subject of human 
ability to fulfil the law of God have always coexisted in the church? 

1st. Pelagian. — (a.) Moral character can be predicated only 
of volitions, (b.) Ability is always the measure of responsi- 
bility, (c.) Hence every man has always plenary power to do 
all that it is his duty to do. (d.) Hence the human will alone, 
to the exclusion of the interference of any internal influence 
from God, must decide human character and destiny. The 
only divine influence needed by man or consistent with his 
character as a self-determined agent is an external, providen- 
tial, and educational one. 

2d. Semipelagian. — (a.) Man's nature has been so far weak- 
ened by the fall that it can not act aright in spiritual matters 
without divine assistance, (b.) This weakened moral state 
which infants inherit from their parents is the cause of sin, 
but not itself sin in the sense of deserving the wrath of God. 
(c.) Man must strive to do his whole duty, when God meets 
him with co-operative grace, and renders his efforts successful. 
(d) Man is not responsible for the sins he commits until after 
he has enjoyed and abused the influences of grace. 



"LIBERTY" AND "ABILITY" DISTINGUISHED. 339 

3d. Augustinian. — Which was adopted by all the original 
Protestant Chnrches, Lutheran and Reformed, (a.) Man is by 
nature so entirely depraved in his moral nature as to be totally 
unable to do any thing spiritually good, or in any degree to 
begin or to dispose himself thereto, (b.) That even under the 
exciting and suasory influences of divine grace the will of man 
is totally unable to act aright in co-operation with grace, until 
after the will itself is by the energy of grace radically and per- 
manently renewed, (c.) Even after the renewal of the will it 
ever continues dependent upon divine grace, to prompt, direct, 
and enable it in the performance of every good work. 

3. How does the usus loquendi of the ivords "Liberty" and 
"Ability " in this connection, among the early differ from that of the 
later Protestant icriters ? 

The early writers often use the term " liberty " in the sense 
in which we now use the term " ability," and deny that man 
since the fall possesses any "liberty" of will Avith respect to 
divine things. 

While modern theologians hold precisely the same doctrine 
entertained by these early writers, they now think it more judi- 
cious to distinguish between the two terms in their constant 
use. By " liberty " is meant the inalienable property of a free 
agent, good or bad, to exercise volitions as he pleases ; that is, 
according to the prevailing dispositions and tendencies of his 
soul. By " ability," on the other hand, is meant the power of 
a depraved human soul, naturally indisposed to spiritual good, 
to change its governing tendencies or -dispositions by means of 
any volition, however strenuous, or to obey the requirements 
of the law in the absence of all holy dispositions. The perma- 
nent affections of the soul govern the volitions, but the voli- 
tions can not alter the affections. And when we say that no 
man since the fall has any ability to render that spiritual obe- 
dience which the law demands, we mean (a) that the radical 
moral dispositions of every man is opposed to that obedience, 
and (b) man has absolutely no ability to change them or (c) 
to exercise volitions contrary to them. 

4. State the orthodox doctrine both negatively and positively. 

The orthodox doctrine does not teach — 1st. That man by the 
fall has lost any of his constitutional faculties necessary to con- 
stitute him a responsible moral agent. These are (a) reason, 
(b) conscience, (c) free will. Man possesses all of these in ex- 
ercise. He has power to know the truth ; he recognizes and 
feels moral distinctions and obligations; his affections and ten- 
dencies and habits of action are spontaneous; in all his voli- 



340 INABILITY. 

tions he chooses and refuses freely as he pleases. Therefore 
he is responsible. Nor, 2d, that man has not power to feel and 
to do many things which are good and amiable, benevolent 
and just, in the relations he sustains to his fellow-men. This 
is often admitted in the Protestant confessions and Theological 
Classics, where it is conceded that man since the fall has a ca- 
pacity for liumana justicia, and " civil good,'" etc. 

But the Orthodox doctrine does teach — 1st. That the inability 
of man since the fall concerns things which involve our relation 
as spiritual beings to God — the apprehension and love of spir- 
itual excellence and action in conformity therewith. These 
matters are designated in the Confessions "things of God," 
"things of the Spirit," "things which pertain to salvation." 
2d. That man since the fall is utterly unable to know, or to 
feel, or to act in correspondence with these things. A natural 
man may be intellectually illuminated but he is spiritually blind. 
He may possess natural affections, but his heart is dead toward 
God, and invinceably averse to his person and law. He may 
obey the letter, but he can not obey in spirit and in truth. 

5. In what sense is this inability absolute, and in ivhat sense 
natural, and in ivhat sense moral? 

1st, It is absolute in the proper sense of that term. No un- 
regenerate man has power either directly or indirectly to do 
what is required of him in this respect; nor to change his own 
nature so as to increase his power; nor to prepare himself for 
grace, nor in the first instance to co-operate with grace, until in 
the act of regeneration God changes his nature and gives him 
through grace gracious ability to act graciously in constant 
dependence upon grace. 

2d. It is natural in the sense that it is not accidental or 
adventitious but innate, and that it belongs to our fallen nature 
as propagated by natural law from parent to child since the fall. 

3d. It is not natural in one sense, because it does not belong 
to the nature of man as created. Man was created with plenary 
ability to do all that was in any way required of him, and the 
possession of such ability is always requisite to the moral per- 
fection of his nature. He may be a real man without it, but 
can be a perfect man only with it. The ability graciously 
bestowed upon man in regeneration is not an endowment ex- 
tra-natural, but consists in the restoration of his nature, in part, 
to its condition of primitive integrity. 

4th. It is not natural in another sense, because it does not 
result in the least from any constitutional deficiency in human 
nature as it now exists as to its rational and moral faculties 
of soul. 



"NATURAL" AXD "MORAL" ABILITY. 341 

5th. This inability is purely moral, because while every re- 
sponsible man possesses all moral as well as intellectual facul- 
ties requisite for right action, the moral state of his faculties 
is such that right action is impossible. Its essence is in the 
inability of the soul to know, love, or choose spiritual good, and 
its ground exists in that moral corruption of soul whereby it is 
blind, insensible, and totally averse to all that is spiritually 
good. 

6. What is the history and value of the famous distinction be- 
tween natural and moral ability ? 

This distinction was first explicitly presented in this form 
by John Cameron, born in Glasgow, 1580, Prof, in the Theo- 
logical School in Saumur, France, 1618, died 1625. 

President Edwards in his great work "On the Will," Pt. I., 
Sec. -4, adopts the same terms, affirming that men since the fall 
have natural ability to do all that is required of them, but are 
destitute of moral ability to do so. By natural ability he meant 
the possession by every responsible free agent, as the condition 
of his responsibility, of all the constitutional faculties necessary 
to enable him to obey God's law. By 'moral ability he meant 
that inherent moral state of those faculties, that righteous dis- 
position of heart, requisite to the performance of those duties. 

As thus stated, and as President Edwards held and used it, 
there is no question as to the validity and importance of this 
distinction. The same principle is explicitly recognized in the 
statement of the orthodox doctrine given above, Questions 4 
and 5. Xevertheless we seriously object to the phraseology 
used, for the following reasons: 

1st. This phraseology has no warrant in the analogy of 
Scripture. They never say that man has one kind of ability 
but has not another. They everywhere consistently teach that 
man is not able to do what is required of him. They never 
teach that he is able in any sense. 

2d. It has never been adopted in the Creed Statements of 
any one of the Reformed Churches. 

3d. It is essentially ambiguous. It has been often used to 
express, sometimes to cover, Semipelagian error. It is naturally 
misleading and confusing when addressed to the struggling 
sinner. This language assures him that he is able in a certain 
sense, when it is only true that he possesses some of the essential 
prerequisites of ability. Ability begins only after all its essen- 
tial conditions are present. To say that a dead bird has mus- 
cular ability to fly. and only lacks vital ability, is trifling with 
words. The truth is, the sinner is absolutely unable because of 
a moral deficiency. It is right enough to say that his inability 



342 INABILITY. 

is purely and simply moral. Brit it is simply untrue and mis- 
leading to tell him he has natural ability, when the fact is 
precisely that he is unable. The work of the Holy Spirit in 
regeneration is not a mere moral suasion but a new moral 
creation. 

4th. Natural is not the proper antithesis of moral. A thing 
may be at the same time natural and moral. This inability of 
man as shown above, is certainly wholly moral, and it is yet in 
an important sense natural, i. e., incident to his nature in its 
present state as naturally propagated. 

5th. The language does not accurately express the important 
distinction intended. The inability is moral and is not either 
physical or constitutional. It has its ground not in the want 
of any faculty, but in the corrupt moral state of the faculties, 
in the inveterate disinclination of the affections and dispositions 
of the voluntary nature. 

7. Prove the fact of this inability from Scripture. 

Jer. xiii. 23; John vi. 44, 65; xv. 5; Rom. ix. 16; 1 Cor. ii. 14. 

8. Prove the same from what the Scriptures teach of the moral 
condition of man by nature. 

It is a state of spiritual blindness and darkness, Epli. iv. 18, 
of spiritual death. — Col. ii. 13. The unregenerate are the "ser- 
vants of sin." — Rom. vi. 20. They are "without strength." — 
Rom. v. 6. Men are said to be subjects of Satan and led about 
by him at his will. — 2 Tim. ii. 26. The only way to change 
the character of our actions is declared to be to change the 
character of our hearts. — Matt. xii. 33-35. 

9. Prove the same from ivhat the Scriptures teach as to the na- 
ture and necessity of regeneration. 

As to its nature it is taught that regeneration is a "new 
birth," a "new creation," a "begetting anew," a "giving a new 
heart" — the subjects of it are "new creatures," "God's work- 
manship," etc. It is accomplished by the "exceeding greatness 
of the mighty power of God."— Eph. i. 18-20. All Christian 
graces, as love, joy, faith, peace, etc., are declared to be "fruits 
of the Spirit."— Gal. v. 22, 23. God "worketh in you to wiU 
and to do of his good pleasure." — Phil. ii. 13. 

As to its necessity this radical change of the governing states 
and proclivities of the will itself is declared to be absolutely 
necessary in the case of every child of Adam, without exception, 
in order to salvation. 

It is plain, therefore, that man must be absolutely spiritually 
impotent antecedent to this change wrought in him by divine 



DOCTRIXE PROVED. 343 

power, and that all ability lie may ever have even to co-operate 
with the grace that saves him, must be consequent upon that 
change. 

10. Prove the same from experience. 

1st. From the experience of every convinced sinner. All 
genuine conviction of sin embraces these two elements: (a.) A 
thorough conviction of responsibility and guilt, justifying God 
and prostrating self before him in confession and absolute self- 
emptying, (b.) A thorough conviction of our own moral impo- 
tence and dependence as much npon divine grace to enable us, 
as upon Christ's merits to justify us. A sinner must in both 
senses, i. e., as to guilt and as to helplessness, be brought into 
a state of utter self-despair, or he can not be brought to Christ. 

2d. From the experience of every true Christian. His most 
intimate conviction is («.) that he was absolutely helpless and 
that he was saved by a divine intervention, ab extra, (b. ) That 
his present degree of spiritual strength is sustained solely by 
the constant communications of the Holy Ghost, and that he 
lives spiritually only as he clings close to Christ. 

3d. From the universal experience of the human family. 
We argue that man is absolutely destitute of spiritual ability, 
because there has never been discovered a single example of 
a mere man who has exercised it since the foundation of the 
earth. 

11. State and refute the objection brought against our doctrine 
on the alleged ground that "ability is the measure of responsibility." 

The maxim that " ability is the measure of responsibility" 
is undoubtedly true under some conditions and false under 
others. The mistake which utterly vitiates the above cited 
objection to the Scriptural doctrine of inability, consists in a 
failure to discriminate between the conditions under which the 
maxim is true, and the conditions under which it is false. 

It is a self-evident truth, and one not denied by any party, 
that an inability which consists either («) in the absence of the 
faculties absolutely necessary for the performance of a duty, 
or (b) in the absence of an opportunity to use them, is entirely 
inconsistent with moral responsibility in the case. If a man 
has not eyes, or if having them he is unavoidably destitute of 
light, he can not be morally bound to see. So, likewise, if a 
man is destitute of intellect, or of natural conscience, or of any 
of the constitutional faculties essential to moral agency, he can 
not be responsible for acting as a moral agent. 

And it is further evident that this irresponsibility arises 



344 INABILITY. 

solely from the bare fact of the inability. It matters not at all 
in this respect whether the inability be self-indnced or not, if 
only it be a real incapacity. A man, for instance, who has 
put out his own eyes in order to avoid the draft, may be 
justly held responsible for that act, but he can never more be 
held responsible for seeing, i. e., for using eyes that he does 
not possess. 

On the other hand it is no less evident that when the ina- 
bility consists solely in the want of the proper dispositions and 
affections, instead of being inconsistent with responsibility it 
is the very ground and reason of just condemnation. Nothing 
is more certain nor more universally confessed, than that the 
affections and dispositions are (1.) not under the control of the 
will. They can no more be changed than our stature by a 
mere volition. (2.) Yet we are responsible for them. 

Those who maintain that responsibility is necessarily lim- 
ited by ability must consequently hold either (1) that every 
man, however degraded, is able by a volition at once to conform 
himself to the highest standard of virtue, which is absurd; or 
(2) that the standard of moral obligation is lowered more and 
more in proportion as a man sins, and by sin loses the capacity 
for obedience, i. e., that moral obligation decreases as guilt in- 
creases, or in other words that God's rights decrease as our 
rebellion against him increases. Which is also absurd. For the 
principle obviously vacates law altogether, making both its pre- 
cept and penalty void, since the sinner carries the law down 
with himself. It takes the law out of God's hands, and puts 
it in the hands of the sinner, who always determines the extent 
of its requirements by the extent of his own apostasy. 

12. Prove that men are responsible for their affections* 

1st. The whole volume of Scripture testifies to the fact that 
God requires men to possess right affections, and that he judges 
and treats men according to their affections. Christ declares 
(Matt. xxii. 37-40) that the whole moral law is summarily 
comprehended in these two commandments, to love God with 
the whole heart, and our neighbor as ourselves. " On these 
two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." But 
"love" is an affection not a volition, nor is it under the imme- 
diate control of the volitions. 

2d. It is the instinctive judgment of all men that moral dis- 
positions and affections are intrinsically either good or evil, 
and worthy in every case according to their character, and 
irrespective of their origin of praise or blame. Some affections 

* Dr. Charles Hodge's "Lectures." 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 345 

indeed are in themselves morally indifferent and become right 
or wrong only when adopted by the will as a principle of action 
in preference to other competing principles, e. g., the affection 
of self-love. But there are other affections which are intrin- 
sically good, like love to God and disinterested benevolence 
towards our fellow-creatures, and others which are intrinsically 
evil, like malice or distrust of God, without any consideration 
of their origin. — Rom. vii. 14-23. Every volition derives all 
its moral quality from the quality of the affection that prompts 
it; while, on the other hand, the moral quality of the aifection 
is original, and independent, and absolute. 

3d. The Scriptures and universal Christian experience teach 
that the common condition of man is one at once morally im- 
potent and responsible. Hence the two can not be inconsistent. 

13. How can mans inability be reconciled with the commands, 
promises, and threatenings of God? 

God righteously deals with the sinner according to the meas- 
ure of his responsibility, and not according to the measure of 
his sinful inability. It would have been a compromise alto- 
gether unworthy of God to have lowered his demands in pro- 
portion to man's sin. Besides, under the gospel dispensation, 
God makes use of his commands, promises, and threatenings, 
as gracious means, under the influence of his Spirit, to enlighten 
the minds, quicken the consciences, and to sanctify the hearts 
of men. 

14. How can mans inability be shown to be consistent luith the 
rational use of means ? 

The efficiency of all means lies in the power of God, and not 
in the ability of man. God has established a connection be- 
tween certain means and the ends desired; he has commanded 
us to use them, and has promised to bless them ; and human 
experience has proved God's faithfulness to his engagements, 
and the instrumental connection between the means and the 
end. 

15. Shoio that the legitimate practical effect of this doctrine is 
not to lead sinners to procrastinate. 

It obviously and rightly tends to extinguish the false hopes 
of every sinner, and to paralyze their efforts to extricate them- 
selves in the exercise of their own strength, or in reliance upon 
their own resources. But both reason and experience assure 
us that the natural and actual effect of this great truth is — 
1st. To humble the soul and fill it with self-despair. 2d. To 



346 INABILITY. 

shut it up to immediate and unreserved reliance upon the sov- 
ereign grace of God in Christ, the only ground of possible hope 
remaining. 3d. Subsequent to conversion this truth leads the 
soul of the Christian to habitual self-distrust, diligence, and 
watchfulness, and to habitual confidence in and gratitude 
towards God. 

The Authoritative Statements of the Various Churches. 

Romish Doctrine. — " Council of Trent,'" Sess. 6, can. 7. — "If any one 
shall say, that all the works performed before justification, on whatso- 
ever principle they are done, are truly sins, and merit the wrath of God 
. . . . anathema sit." See further under the heads of " Original 
Sin" and "Effectual Calling." 

Lutheran Doctrine. — "Aug. Con/.," p. 15. — "Human will possesses 
a certain ability (libertatem) for effecting civil righteousness, and for 
choosing things apparent to the senses. But, without the Holy Spirit, 
it has not the power of effecting the righteousness of God, or spiritual 
righteousness, because the animal man does not perceive those things 
which are of the Spirit of God." 

"Formula Concordia?" p. 579. — "Therefore we believe that as much 
as the power is wanting to a corpse to revive itself, and restore to itself 
corporeal life, by so much is all and every faculty wanting to a man, 
who by reason of sin is spiritually dead, of. recalling himself to spiritual 
life." lb., p. 656. — "We believe that the intellect, heart, and will of an 
unrenewed man are altogether unable, in spiritual and divine things, and 
of their own proper natural vigor, to understand, to believe, to embrace, 
to think, to will, to commence, to perfect, to transact, to operate, or 
to co-operate any thing. " 

Reformed Doctrine. — " Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, " 
Art. 10. — " The condition of man after the fall of Adam, is such, that he 
can not turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good 
works, to faith and calling upon God : wherefore we have no power to 
do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of 
God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good-will, and work- 
ing with us when we have that good- will." 

"Conf. Helvetica Posterior." — "In the unrenewed man there is no 
free-will for good, and no strength for performing that which is good. 
. . . . No one denies that in external things the renewed and the 
unrenewed alike have free-will; for man has this constitution in common 
with the other animals, that some things he wills, and some things he wills 
not. . . . We condemn on this subject the Manicheans, who deny 
that evil originated in the exercise of a free-will by a good man. We 
also condemn the Pelagians, who say that even the bad man possesses 
sufficient free-will for performing the good commanded. " 

"Formula Consensus Helvetica" Can. 22. — "We hold therefore that 
they speak with too little accuracy and not without danger, who call this 
inability to believe moral inability, and do not hold it to be natural, add- 
ing that man in whatever condition he may be placed is able to believe 
if he will, and that faith in some way or other, indeed, is self-originated; 
and yet the Apostle most distinctly calls it the gift of God " (Eph. ii. 8). 

"Articles of Synod of Dort," Chap. iii. Art. 3. — "All men are conceived 
in sin, and born children of wrath, indisposed to all saving good, pre- 
pense to evil, dead in sins and the slaves of sin, and without the grace of 



AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH STATEMENTS. 347 

the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return 
to God, to correct their depraved nature, or to dispose themselves to the 
correction of it." 

"Confession of Faith ," Chap. ix. § 3. —"Man, by his fall and state of 
sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any sx^iritual good accompany- 
ing salvation ; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that 
good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert him- 
self, or to prepare himself thereunto." 

Bemoxsteaxt Doctktxe. — Limborch, " TJieol. Christ. ," Lib. 4, ch. 
14. \ 21. — "The grace of God is the primary cause of faith, without 
which a man is not able rightly to use his free-will. . . . Therefore 
free-will co-operates with grace, otherwise the obedience or the disobe- 
dience of man would have no place. . . . Grace is not the sole 
cause, although it is the primary cause of salvation, . . for the co-op- 
eration itself of the free-will with grace is of grace as a primary cause : 
for unless the free-will had been excited by prevenient grace it would 
not have been able to co-operate with grace." 

Socixiax Docteixe. — "Racovian Catechism," Ques. 422. — "Is not 
free-will placed in our power so that we may obey God ? Surely, 
because it is certain that the first man was so constituted by God that 
he was endowed with free-will. Nor truly has any cause supervened 
why God should have deprived man of that free-will subsequently to 
his fall." 



CHAPTER XXI. 

IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. 

1. Give a summary statement of the facts already proved from 
Scripture, consciousness, and observation, and genercdly adenoid- 
edged in all Creeds of the Protestant Churches, as to mans moral 
and spiritual condition from birth and by nature. 

1st. All men, without exception, begin to sin as soon as 
they enter upon moral agency. 2d. They are all born with 
an antecedent and prevailing tendency in their nature to sin. 
3d. This innate tendency is itself sin in the strictest sense. It 
is inherently ill-deserving as well as polluting and destruc- 
tive, and without any reference to its origin in Adam, it fully 
deserves God's wrath and curse, and except when expiated by 
the blood of Christ is always visited with that curse. Presi- 
dent Edwards, " Freedom of the Will," pt. 4, sec. 1, says, " The 
essence of the virtue and vice of dispositions of the heart lies 
not in their cause but their nature." 4th. Men are, therefore, 
by nature, totally averse to all good and unable of themselves 
to reverse the evil tendency inherent in their nature and to 
choose good in preference to evil. 5th. Consequently they 
are by nature children of wrath, their character formed and 
their evil destiny fixed antecedent to any personal action of 
their own. 

2. Show that the real difficulty in reconciling the ways of God to 
man lies in these unquestionable facts ; and further, that recognition 
of these facts in their integrity is of far more doctrinal importance 
than any account of their origin can possibly be. 

That we begin to exist, antecedent to possible personal 
agency, with a nature which justly condemns us and infallibly 
predisposes us to actual sin, is an amazing mystery, an ineffable 
curse, and yet a certain and universal fact. No possible theory 
as to its origin can aggravate its mystery or its terrible signifi- 
cance. We do not claim that the doctrine of our responsibility 



MORAL PRINCIPLES OF THE DEALINGS OF GOD. 349 

for Adam's apostatizing act is without grave difficulties. But 
we do maintain (a) that it is taught in Scripture, and (b) that 
it is more satisfactory to reason and to our moral feelings than 
any other solution ever given. 

It is no less evident that the full recognition of these facts 
is of far more doctrinal and practical importance than any ex- 
planation of their origin or occasion can be. Our views as to 
these facts must at once determine our relation to God, the 
entire character of our religious experience, and our views as 
to the nature of sin and grace, the necessity and nature of re- 
demption, regeneration, and sanctification, while any rationale 
of these facts will only clear and enlarge our views as to the 
consistency of God's dealings with the human race with his 
own perfections, and as to the relations of the several parts of 
the divine plan with each other. 

Hence we find — (1.) That these facts as to man's innate 
sinfulness are much more prominently and frequently set forth 
in the Scriptures than is the assertion of our responsibility for 
Adam's act of apostasy. (2.) That these have been clearly 
defined and uniformly agreed upon by all parties and in all 
ages of the Christian Church, while with respect to our connec- 
tion with Adam there has prevailed a great deal of vagueness 
and contrariety of view. — Principal Cunningham's "Theo. of 
the Kef.," Essay vii., 1. 

3. State the self-evident moral principles which must be certainly 
presupposed in every inquiry into the dealings of God with his re- 
sponsible creatures. 

(1.) God can not be the author of sin. (2.) We must not 
believe that he could consistently with his own perfections 
create a creature de novo with a sinful nature. (3.) The per- 
fection of righteousness, not bare sovereignty, is the grand dis- 
tinction of all God's dealings. The error that the volition of 
God determines moral distinctions, was for opposite reasons 
maintained by the Supralapsarians Twisse, Gomar, etc., and by 
such Arminians as Grotius, the one to show that God might 
condemn whom he pleased irrespective of real guilt, and the 
other to show that he could save whom he pleased irrespective 
of a real atonement. The fundamental truth, however, now 
admitted by all Christians, is that the immutable moral perfec- 
tions of God's nature constitute the absolute standard of right, 
and in every action determine his will, and are manifested in 
all his works. (4.) It is a heathen notion, adopted by natural- 
istic rationalists, that the "order of nature," or the "nature of 
things," or "natural law," is a real agent independent of God, 
limiting his freedom, or acting with him as an independent 



350 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. 

concause in producing effects. "Nature" is simply God's crea- 
ture and instrument. What is generated by nature is made by 
God. (5.) We can not believe that God would inflict either 
moral or physical evil upon any creature whose natural rights 
had not been previously justly forfeited. (6.) Every moral 
agent must in justice enjoy a fair probation, i. e., a trial so 
conditioned as to afford at least as much opportunity of success 
as liability to failure. 

4. State the tivo distinct questions thence arising, which though 
frequently confused, it is essential to keep separate. 

1st. How does an innate sinful nature originate in each hu- 
man being at the commencement of his existence, so that the 
Maker of the man is not the cause of his sin. If this corrup- 
tion of nature originated in Adam, How is it transmitted to us? 

2d. Why, on what ground of justice, does God inflict this 
terrible evil, the root and ground of all other evils, at the very 
commencement of personal existence? What fair probation 
have infants born in sin enjoyed? When, and Why, were their 
rights as new created beings forfeited? 

It is self-evident that these questions are distinct, and should 
be treated as such. The first may possibly be answered on 
physiological grounds. The second question however concerns 
the moral government of God, and inquires concerning the 
justice of his dispensations. In the history of theology of all 
ages and in all schools very much confusion has resulted from 
the failure to emphasize and preserve prominent this distinction. 

i. how does it come to pass that human souls are corrupt from 
Birth? If this Corruption is Transmitted from Adam, 
How is it Transmitted? 

5. What answers have been given to this question which deny 
or ignore the Adamic origin of sin ? 

1st. The Manichsean theory, adopted by Manes, a. d. 240, 
from the dualism of Zoroaster, of the eternal self-existence of 
two principles, the one good identified with the absolute God, 
the other evil identified with matter, or that principle of which 
matter is one of the manifestations. Our spirits have their pri- 
mal origin with God, while sin necessarily results from their 
entanglement with matter. This system obviously destroys the 
moral character of sin, and was earnestly opposed by all the 
early fathers of the Christian church. 

2d. The Pantheistic theory that sin is the necessary incident 
of a finite nature (limitation). Some writers, not absolute Pan- 



DIFFERENT VIEWS AS TO PROPAGATION OF SIN. 351 

theists, regard it as incident to a certain stage of development 
and the appointed means of higher perfection. 

3d. Pelagians and Rationalists, denying innate corruption, 
refer the general fact that actual sin occurs as soon as man 
emerges into free agency to the freedom of the will, or to the 
influence of example, etc. 

4th. Others refer this guilty corruption of nature, which in- 
heres in every human soul from birth, to an actual apostasy of 
each soul committed before birth, either in a state of individual 
pre-existence, as Origen and Dr. Edward Beecher in his " Con- 
flict of Ages " teach; or as transcendental and timeless, as Dr. 
Julius Miiller teaches in his " Christian Doctrine of Sin," Vol. 
II., p. 157. This is evidently a pure speculation, unsupported 
by any facts of consciousness or of observation, contradicted by 
the testimony of Scripture, Rom. v. 12, and Gen. iii., and one 
which has never been accepted by the Church. 

6. What different views have been held by Christian theologians 
ivho admit the Adamic origin of human sin, as to the mode of its 
propagation from Adam to his descendants? 

This is obviously a question of very inferior importance to 
the moral question which remains to be discussed, as to the 
grounds in right and justice upon which God directly or indi- 
rectly brings this curse upon all men at birth. Hence it is a 
point neither explicitly explained in Scripture, nor answered in 
any uniform way even by a majority of theologians. 

From the beginning, orthodox theologians have been dis- 
tinguished as Traducianists and Creationists. Tertullian advo- 
cated the doctrine that the souls of children are derived from 
the souls of their parents by natural generation. Jerome held 
that each soul is independently created by God at birth. Au- 
gustine hesitated between the two views. The majority of 
Romish theologians have been Creationists, the majority of Lu- 
theran theologians, and New England theologians since Dr. 
Hopkins, have been Traducianists. Nearly all the theologians 
of the Reformed church have been Creationists. 

1st. The common view of the Traducianists is not "that soul 
is begotten from soul, nor body from body, but the whole man 
from the whole man." — D. Pareus, Heidelberg (1548-1622), on 
Rom. v. 12. In this view it is plain that the corrupted moral 
nature of our first parents would be inevitably transmitted to 
all their descendants by natural generation. 

2d. The doctrine of pure Realism is that humanity is a sin- 
gle generic spiritual substance which corrupted itself by its 
own voluntary apostatising act in Adam. The souls of indi- 
vidual men are not separate substances, but manifestations of 



352 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. 

this single generic substance through their several bodily or- 
ganizations. The universal soul being corrupt, its several man- 
ifestations from birth are corrupt also. 

3d. Those who hold that God creates each soul separately, 
have generally held that he withholds from them from the first 
those influences of the Holy Spirit upon which all spiritual life 
in the creature depends, as the just punishment of Adam's sin, 
as he restores this life-giving influence in consideration of the 
righteousness of Christ, to the elect in the act of regeneration. 
Dr. T. Ridgely, London (1667-1734), says Vol. I., pp. 41-3, 414, 
" God creates the souls of men destitute of heavenly gifts, and 
supernatural light, and that justly, because Adam lost those 
gifts for himself and his posterity." 

A few Creationists have, like Lampe, Utrecht (1683-1729), 
Tom. I., p. 572, taught that the body derived from the parents 
"is corrupted by inordinate and perverse emotions through 
sin," which thus communicates like inordinate affections to the 
soul placed in it by God. This latter view has never prevailed, 
since sin is not an affection of matter, and can belong to the 
body only as an organ of the soul. Many Creationists, however, 
refer the propagation of habitual sin to natural generation, in 
a general sense, as a law whereby God ordains that children 
shall be like their parents, without inquiring at all as to the 
method. So De Moor, Cap. XV., § 33, and " Canons of Synod 
of Dort." 

II. Why, on what Ground of Justice and Right, has God entailed 
this Curse of Antenatal Forfeiture upon all Human Beings 
antecedent to personal agency ? 

7. What is the Arminian explanation of this fact ? 

1st. They admit that all men inherit from Adam a corrupt 
nature predisposing them to sin, but they deny that this innate 
condition is itself properly sin, or involves guilt or desert of 
punishment. 

2d. They affirm that it was consistent with the justice of 
God to allow this great evil to come upon all men at birth, only 
in view of the fact that he had determined to introduce an 
adequate compensation in the redemption of Christ, impartially 
intended for all men, and the sufficient influences of his grace 
which all men experience, arid which restores to all ability to 
do right, and therefore full personal responsibility. Hence, in- 
fants are not under condemnation. Condemnation attaches to 
no man until he has abused his gracious ability. In the gift 
of Christ, God redresses the wrong done us by allowing Adam 
to use his fallen nature as the medium for the propagation 



CHURCH DOCTRINE STATED. 353 

of sinful children. — Dr. D. D. Whedon, "Bibliotheca Sacra," 
April, 1862, "Conf. Rem.," vii. 3, Limborch, "Theol. Christ," 
iii., 3, 4, 5, 67. 

We object to this doctrine. — (1.) That our condemnation in 
Adam is of justice, and our redemption in Christ of Grace. 
(2.) The remedy of the compensatory system is not applied to 
many heathen, etc. (3.) The view is inconsistent with Script- 
ural doctrines as to sin, inability, regeneration, etc., etc. 

8. What has been the prevalent answer given by New England 
Theologians since the days of Dr. Hopkins ? 

Dr. Hopkins taught the doctrine of divine efficiency in the 
production of sin. This, of course, dissolves the question as to 
the justice of God in bringing Adam's descendants into the 
world as sinners, since he is the ultimate cause of all sin. Later 
New England divines discard the doctrine of divine efficiency, 
but they agree with Hopkins in denying imputation, and in 
referring the law which entails the corruption of Adam upon 
each of his descendants to a sovereign divine constitution. 

If this view, while acknowledging that this divine consti- 
tution is infinitely just and righteous, simply disclaims clear 
knowledge of its grounds and reasons, we have only to answer, 
that while in part we sympathize with it, we dare not refuse 
the partial light thrown upon the problem in Scripture, and 
exhibited below. But if the design of these theologians be to 
assert, either (1) that this constitution is not just, or (2) that 
God's bare will makes it to be just, and that its being sovereign 
is the ground of its being righteous, we protest against it as a 
grievous heresy. 

9. What is the orthodox answer to the above question in which 
the Romish Lutheran and Reformed Theologians as a body concur ? 

It is certain that while there has been difference of opin- 
ion and looseness of statement as to the grounds of our just 
accountability for Adam's first sin, the whole Church has always 
regarded our loss of original righteousness and innate moral 
corruption to be a just and righteous, not sovereign, penal 
consequence of Adam's apostatizing act. This is the doctrine, 
agreement with wfeich is alike accordant with Scripture, honor- 
ing to the moral attributes of God and the equity of his moral 
government, and conformable to historical orthodoxy. In the 
explanation of this doctrine the orthodox have often differed. 
It is a simple fact that God as a just judge condemned the 
whole race on account of Adam's sin, and condemnation by 
God, the source of life, involves and is justly followed by spir- 
itual and moral death. 
23 



354 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. 

10. Where is the fact asserted in Scripture that God condemned 
the whole race because of Adams apostasy ? 

Kom. v. 17-19. — "For if by one man's offence death reigned 
by one;" "Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation ; " " For as by one man's disobe- 
dience many were made sinners." 

11. Shoiv that in this doctrine the whole Church has concurred ? 

The sin of Adam was an act of apostasy. The spiritual 
desertion and consequent spiritual corruption which immedi- 
ately occurred in his personal experience (the very penalty 
threatened) was, of course, a just penal consequence of that 
act. Augustine said ("De Nupt. et Concup." IT. xxxiv.) — 
" Nothing remains but to conclude that in that first man all are 
understood to have sinned, because all were in him when he 
sinned; whereby sin is brought in with birth, and not removed 
save by the new birth." 

Dr. G. F. Wiggers, the learned expounder of " Augustinian- 
ism and Pelagianism, from the Original Sources," says in his 
statement of Augustine's view of original sin, eh. 5, division 
2, § 2. "The propagation of Adam's sin among his posterity 
is a punishment of the same sin. The corruption of human 
nature, in the whole race, was the righteous punishment of 
the transgression of the first man, in whom all men already 
existed." 

The "Council of Trent," Sess. v., 1 and 2, says that "sin 
which is the death of the soul " was part of that penalty which 
Adam incurred by his transgression, and which is therefore 
transmitted to his descendants as well as inflicted on himself." 

Bellarmin, "Amiss. Grat." iii. 1, says, "The penalty which 
properly corresponds with the first sin is the forfeiture of orig- 
inal righteousness and of those supernatural gifts with which 
God had furnished our nature." 

Luther (in Genes. 1, p. 98, cap. 5,) says, that the image of 
Adam in which Seth was begotten " included original sin, and 
the penalty of eternal death inflicted because of the sin of 
Adam." 

Melanchthon ("Explicatio Symboli Niceni. Corp. Eefor.," 
xxiii. 403 and 583) says, "Adam and Eve merited guilt and 
depravity for their descendants." 

" Formula Concordia?," p. 639 and p. 643, Hase ed. — " Espe- 
cially since by the seduction of Satan, through the fall, by the 
just judgment of God in the punishment of men, concreated or 
original righteousness was lost . . . and human nature 
corrupted." 



THE CONSENSUS OF THE CHURCHES SHOWN. 355 

" Apol. Aug. Conf.," p. 58. — " In Genesis the penalty im- 
posed for original sin is described. For there was human 
nature subjected not only to death and corporeal evils, but also 
to the reign of the devil. . . . Defect and concupiscence 
are both penal evils and sins." 

Quenstedt (fl688), " Ques. Theo. Did.," Pol. I., 994— " It 
was not simply of the good pleasure or the absolute sovereignty 
of God, but of the highest justice and equity, that the sin, 
which Adam as the root and origin of the whole human race 
committed, should be imputed to us, and propagated in us so 
as to constitute us guilty." 

Both the Second Helvetic, Ch. 8, and the Gallic Confessions, 
Art. 9, say that Adam, "by his own fault (culpa) became sub- 
ject to sin, and such as he became after the fall, such are all 
who were propagated by him, they being subject to sin, death, 
and various calamities." 

Peter Martyr, Professor at Zurich (1500-1561), as quoted by 
Turretm (Loco ix., 2, 9, § 43), says, "Assuredly there is no one 
who can doubt that original sin (inherent) is inflicted upon us 
in revenge and punishment of the first fall." 

Calvin. — "God by a just judgment condemned us to wrath 
in Adam, and willed us to be born corrupt on account of 
his sin." 

Ursinus (1534-1583), friend of Melanchthon, professor at 
Heidelberg and author of the "Heidelberg Catechism," says 
(Qusest. 7, pp. 40, 41), "original sin" (inherent) "passes over" 
to their descendants, "not through the body, nor through the 
soul, but through the impure generation of the whole man, on 
account of (propter) the guilt of our first parents, on account 
of which, God, by a just judgment, while he creates our souls, 
at the same time deprives them of the original rectitude and 
gifts which he had conferred upon the parents." 

L. Danasus (1530-1596). — "There are three things which 
constitute a man guilty before God: 1. The sin flowing from 
this that we have all sinned in the first man. 2. Corruption, 
which is the punishment of this sin, which fell upon Adam 
and upon all his posterity. 3. Actual sins." 

Theodore Beza (1519-1605), on Eomans xii., etc. — "As 
Adam, by the commission of sin, first was made guilty of the 
wrath of God, then, as being guilty, underwent as the punish- 
ment of his sin the corruption of soul and body, so also he 
transmitted to posterity a nature in the first place guilty, next, 
corrupted." 

J. Arminius, of Leyden (1560-1609). — "Whatever punish- 
ment, therefore, was inflicted on our first parents, has gone 
down through and now rests on all their posterity; so that 



356 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. 

all are children of wrath by nature, being obnoxious to con- 
demnation . . . and to a destitution of righteousness and 
true holiness," "are destitute of original righteousness, which 
penalty is usually called a loss of the divine image, and orig- 
inal sin." 

G. J. Vossius, Leyden (1577-1649), "Hist. Pelag.," Lb. ii., 
1. — 1. "The Catholic Church has always thus decided, that the 
first sin is imputed to all; that is, that its effects are, according 
to the just judgment of God, transmitted to all the children 
of Adam ... on account whereof we are born without 
original righteousness." 

Synod of Dort (1618). — " Such as man was after the fall, 
such children also he begat, ... by the propagation of a 
vicious nature, by the just judgment of God." 

Francis Turretin, Geneva (1623-1687), Locus 9, Q. 9, §§ 6, 14. 

Amesius, "Medulla Theolog.," Lib. prim., cap. 17. — "2. This 
propagation of sin consists in two parts, in imputation and in 
real communication. 3. By imputation that single act of disobe- 
dience which Adam committed is made also ours. 4. By real 
communication, not indeed the single sin. 5. Original sin, since 
it essentially consists in deprivation of original righteousness, 
and this deprivation follows the first sin as a penalty, this has 
in the first instance the nature of a penalty rather than of a 
sin. Inasmuch as that original righteousness is denied by the 
justice of God, so far forth it is penalty ; inasmuch as it ought 
to be present and is absent by human fault, so far forth it is 
sin. 6. Therefore this privation is handed down from Adam 
after the manner of ill-desert in so far as it is penalty, and after 
the manner of real efficiency in so far as it has adjoined to it 
the nature of sin." 

H. Witsius (1636-1708), "Economy," Bk. I., ch. 8, §§ 33 
and 34. — " It is therefore necessary that the sin of Adam in 
virtue of the covenant of works, be so laid to the charge of his 
posterity, who were comprised with him in the same covenant, 
that, on account of the demerit of his sin, they are born des- 
titute of original righteousness," etc. 

"Formula Consensus Helvetica" (1675), canon x. — "But 
there appears no way in which hereditary corruption could 
fall, as spiritual death, upon the whole human race by the 
just judgment of God, unless some sin of that race preceded, 
incurring the penalty of that death. For God, the supremely 
just Judge of all the earth, punishes none but the guilty." 

Westminster "Conf. and Cat"; " Conf. Faith," ch. vii., § 2 
and ch. vi., § 3; " L. Cat," 22 and 25; "S. Cat,," 18. 

President Witherspoon, "Works," Vol. IV., p. 96. — "It 
seems very plain that the state of corruption and wicked- 



IMPUTATION DEFINED. 357 

ness which men are now in, is stated in Scripture as being 
the effect and punishment of Adam's first sin." 

See also the truth of this position affirmed by Dr. Tho. 
Chalmers, "Institutes of Theology," part 1, ch. 6; and by Dr. 
William Cunningham; "Theology of the Reformation," Essay 
vii., § 2; Dr. James Thorn well, "Collected Writings," Vol. I., 
pp. 479, 559, 561, etc. ; and a learned article by Prof. Geo. P. 
Fisher, of New Haven, Theo. Sem., in the "New Englander," 
July, 1868. 

Thus we have the consensus of Catholic and Protestant, 
Lutheran and Reformed, of Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian, 
of Goniar and Arminius, of the Synod of Dort and the West- 
minster Assembly, of Scotland and of New England. 

12. Why loas this doctrine expressed technically as the imputa- 
tion of the guilt of Adams apostatizing act? and state the meaning 
of the terms. 

At the Council of Trent Albertus Pighius and Ambrosius 
Catherinus (F. Paul's "Hist. Con. Trent," Lib. ii., s., 65) main- 
tained that the imputed guilt of Adam's first sin constituted 
the only ground of the condemnation which rests upon men at 
birth. The Council did not allow this heresy, but neverthe- 
less maintained a rather negative than positive view of man's 
inherent guilty corruption. Consequently Calvin and all the 
first Reformers and Creeds were principally concerned in em- 
phasizing the fact that original sin inherent, as distinguished 
from original sin imputed, is intrinsically and justly, as moral 
corruption, worthy of God's wrath and curse. It is the reason 
why the salvation of infants is referred to the sovereign grace 
of God, and the expiatory merits of Christ, and it continues in 
adults the source of all actual sin and the main ground of 
condemnation to eternal death. Infants and adults suffer, and 
adults are damned on account of the guilt of inherent sin, but 
never on account of Adam's sin imputed. 

But Avhen the question is asked why God, either directly 
or indirectly, brings us into existence thus corrupt, the whole 
church answered as above shown, because God has thereby justly 
punished us for Adams apostasy. 

This is technically expressed as the "imputation to us of 
the guilt of Adam's act." 

"Guilt" is just liability to punishment. The recognition 
of guilt is a judicial and not sovereign act of God. 

"Imputation" (the Hebrew 3E>n and the Greek Xoy%o/nai 
frequently occurring and translated "to count," "to reckon," "to 
impute," etc.) is simply to lay to one's charge as a just ground 
of legal procedure, whether the thing imputed antecedently 



358 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. 

belonged to the person to whom it is charged, or for any other 
adequate reason he is justly responsible for it. Thus not to im- 
pute sin to the doer of it, is of course graciously to refrain from 
charging the guilt of his own act or state upon him as a ground 
of punishment; while to impute righteousness without works 
is graciously to credit the believer with a righteousness which 
is not personally his own. — Eom. iv. 6, 8; 2 Cor. v. 19; see 
Num. xxx. 15; xviii. 22-27, 30; Lev. v. 17, 18; vii. 18; xvi. 22; 
Eom. ii. 26; 2 Tim. iv. 16, etc. 

The imputation, i. e., judicial charging of Adam's sin to us, 
is rather to be considered as contemplating the race as a whole, 
as one moral body, than as a series of individuals. The race 
was condemned as a whole, and hence each individual comes 
into existence in a state of just antenatal forfeiture. Turretin 
calls it " commune peccatum, communis culpa" L. 9, Q. 9. This 
and this alone is what the church has meant by this doctrine. 
Afterwards in our own persons God condemns us only and most 
justly because of our inherent moral corruption and our actual 
transgressions. The imputation of the guilt of Adam's aposta- 
tizing act to us in common leads judicially to spiritual desertion 
in particular, and spiritual desertion leads by necessary conse- 
quence to inherent depravity. The imputation of our sins in 
common to Christ leads to his desertion (Matt, xxvii. 46), but 
his temporary desertion leads to no tendency to inherent sin, 
because he was the God-man. The imputation of Christ's right- 
eousness to us is the condition of the restoration of the Holy 
Ghost, and that restoration leads by necessary consequence to 
regeneration and sanctification. " It is only when justificatio 
forensis maintains its Keformation position at the head of the 
process of salvation, that it has any firm or secure standing at 
all."— Dr. J. A. Dorner's "Hist. Prot. Theo.," Vol. II., p. 160. 

13. What is the origin of the Distinction between the Mediate 
and the Immediate Imputation of Adams sin, and what has been 
the usage tvith respect to those terms among theologians ? 

As above shown, from the beginning, the universal Church 
has agreed in holding that the guilt of Adam's first sin was 
directly charged to the account of the human race in mass, 
just as it was charged to himself, and punished in the race 
by desertion and consequent depravity, just as it was punished 
in him. This was uniformly expressed by the technical phrase, 
the imputation of the guilt of his first sin to his descendants. 

In the first half of the seventeenth century, Joshua Placseus, 
professor at Saumur, was universally understood to deny any 
imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, and to admit only 
inherent innate corruption as derived from Adam by natural 



MEDIATE AND IMMEDIATE IMPUTATION. 359 

generation. This was explicitly condemned by the French 
National Synod at Charenton, 1645; and repudiated by all 
orthodox theologians, Lutheran and Reformed. Placasus sub- 
sequently originated the distinction between Immediate and 
Mediate Imputation. By the former he meant the direct charg- 
ing of the guilt of Adam's sin antecedent to their own sinful 
state. By the latter he meant that we are found guilty with 
Adam of his apostasy because in virtue of inherent depravity 
we are apostates also. He denied the former and admitted the 
latter. 

It is obvious — 1st. That this doctrine of mediate imputation 
alone is virtually the "New England Eoot Theory," above dis- 
cussed, which refers the abandoning of the human race to the 
operation of the natural law of inheritance to the sovereign 
will, instead of to the just judgment, of God. 

2d. It is a denial of the universal doctrine of the Church 
that Adam's sin is justly charged to his descendants as to him- 
self, and punished in them by depravity as it was punished in 
himself. That imputation was obviously, whatever its ground, 
purely immediate and antecedent. 

3d. It is evident that Adam's sin can not at the same time 
be both immediately and mediately imputed to the same effect. 
It would be absurd to think that mankind are judicially pun- 
ished with inherent corruption as a just punishment for Adam's 
sin, and at the same time counted guilty of Adam's sin because 
they are afflicted with that punishment. It is for this reason 
that so many advocates of the church doctrine of immediate 
imputation deny that imputation can in any sense be mediate. 

4th. But the penalty of Adam's sin was " Death " ; that is, all 
penal evils, temporal, and eternal. The strongest advocates of 
immediate imputation, in order to account for the infliction of 
innate inherent sin, admit that all the otlier elements of the pen- 
alty denounced upon Adam come upon us because of our oivn 
inherent and actual sins. — See Turretin, L. 9, Quaes. 9, § 14, and 
"Princeton Essays." 

5th. The immediate imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin is 
to the race as a whole, and respects each individual antecedently 
to his existence as a judicial cause of his commencing that ex- 
istence in a depraved condition. When each single man is con- 
sidered in himself personally and subsequent to birth, all agree 
that he is condemned with Adam because of a common inherent 
depravity and life. 

6th. Many found difficulty in conceiving how inherited in- 
herent corruption can be guilt as well as pollution. Their idea 
was that a sinful state must originate in the free choice of the 
person concerned, in order to invoke the moral responsibility 



360 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. 

implied by guilt. Yet all acknowledge that inherent corrup- 
tion is guilt. Some tacitly accounted for this on the principle 
of Edwards, that " the essence of the virtue or vice of disposi- 
tions of the heart lies not in their cause, but in their nature." 
Others, however, held that the guilt inherent in innate sin is 
due to the fact that this sin is connected as an effect with the 
apostasy of Adam. If the question then be, Why the race is 
under ban, and we are allowed to commence our moral agency 
in a depraved condition ? all the orthodox answer in terms or 
in effect, " Because of the most just immediate imputation of 
Adam's first sin." 

If the question be, Why are we severally, after birth, judged 
guilty as well as corrupt, and why are we punished with all 
the temporal and eternal penal evils denounced upon Adam ? 
many of the orthodox say, " Because of our own inherent sin 
mediating the full imputation of his sin." 

Andrew Quenstedt, Wittenberg (11688), "Theo. Did. Pol.," 
I., 998. — "The first sin of Adam is imputed to us immediately 
inasmuch as we exist hitherto in Adam. But the sin of Adam 
is imputed to us mediately in so far as we are regarded indi- 
vidually and in our own proper persons." 

F. furretin, Geneva (11687), Locns 9, Qusest, 9, § 14.— "The 
penalty which sin brings upon us is either privative or posi- 
tive. The former is the want or privation of original right- 
eousness. The latter is death both temporal and eternal, and 
in general all evils which are sent upon sinners. . . . With 
respect to the former we say that the sin of Adam is imputed 
to us immediately to the effect of the privative penalty, be- 
cause it is the cause of the privation of original righteousness, 
and so ought to go before privation, at least in the order of 
nature; but as to the latter, the positive penalty may be said 
to be mediately imputed, because we are not obnoxious to 
that, unless after we are born and corrupt." 

Hence — (1.) All in effect admit immediate imputation, and 
deny mediate imputation alone. (2.) Many ignore the distinc- 
tion, which never emerged till the time of Placaeus. (3.) A 
number, in the senses above shown, assert both. 

14. How is this Doctrine proved by the analogy which Paul 
(Rom. v. 12-21) asserts between our condemnation in Adam and 
our justification in Christ? 

" Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon 
all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one 
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." 

The analogy here asserted is as to the fact and nature of 
the imputation in both cases, not at all as to the ground of it. 



THE GROUND OF THIS IMPUTATION. 361 

Christ is one with his elect because of the gracious appointment 
of the Father and his voluntary assumption of their nature. 
Adam is one with his descendants because he is their natural 
head, and because of the gracious appointment of God. In 
these respects the cases differ. But the cases are identical in 
so far as in view of the oneness in both cases subsisting, we 
are justly charged with the guilt of Adam's first sin and pun- 
ished therefor, and Christ is justly charged with the guilt of 
our " many offences " and punished therefor, and we are justly 
credited with the merit of his righteousness and accepted, re- 
generated, and saved therefor. — See above Ques. 12. 

If the imputation of Christ's righteousness is immediate the 
imputation of Adam's sin must be the same, though the basis 
of the one is grace it is no less just, and though the basis of 
the other be justice, the original constitution from which it 
originated is no less gracious. 

15. How have orthodox theologians explained the ground for this 
universally assumed judicial charging of the guilt of Adams apos- 
tatising act to his descendants ? 

They are generally agreed that the race is justly responsible 
for the judicial consequences of that act. Beyond this the ac- 
counts rendered of the matter have been different, and often 
vague. 

1st. Augustine conceived of the race as essentially one. As 
far as Adam is considered as a person his sin was his own, but 
as far as the entire race in its essential undistributed, unindi- 
vidualized form of existence was in him, his act was the apos- 
tasy of that whole race, and the common nature being both 
guilty and depraved is justly distributed to each individual in 
that condition and under that condemnation. The whole race 
was not personally nor individually, but virtually or potentially, 
coexistent and coactive in him. — Dr. Philip Schaff in " Lange 
on Rom.," pp. 191-196; Dr. Geo. P. Fisher, "New Englander," 
July, 1860. This is a mode of thought which at least presup- 
poses Realism, and language to the same effect became tradi- 
tional in the church, and has been used in a general sense by 
many, who were in no degree philosophical realists, when treat- 
ing of our relation to Adam. Forms of expression originating 
in this view have lingered among theologians who have ex- 
plicitly rejected realism, and have definitely substituted for it 
a different explanation of the facts. The whole race has been 
considered one organically, and we have been said to have 
been in Adam as branches in a tree, etc. Such renderings of 
the matter have continued to late times, and been commingled 
with others essentially different, as that of representation, etc. 



362 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. 

It is, however unsatisfactory as an explanation of guilt, in the 
highest degree orthodox, both because of the number and high 
authority of the writers who have used it, and because it im- 
plies the highest conceivable ground of immediate imputa- 
tion. The apostatising act is imputed to us, as it is imputed 
to Adam, " because we were guilty coagents with him in that 
act."— Shedd's "Essays." 

2d. The Federal View presupposes the natural relation. 
Adam stands before God in Eden a free, responsible, fallible 
moral agent, with an animal body and a generative nature. 
Without a miracle his children must be carried along with him 
in his destinies. His own status was and must ever continue 
according to bare law contingent upon free-will. God, there- 
fore, as the benevolent and righteous guardian of the interests 
of all moral creatures, graciously constituted him the federal 
head and representative of his race as a whole, and promised 
him for himself and for all eternal life, or confirmed holiness and 
happiness, on condition of temporary obedience under favora- 
ble conditions, with the penalty for him and for them of death, 
or condemnation and desertion, on condition of disobedience. 
This was an act of grace to him, as it substituted a temporal 
for an eternal probation. It was no less an act of grace for the 
race, for reasons stated below. 

This "Federal Theology" was developed and introduced in 
all its fulness of detail and bearings by Coccejus (1602-1669), 
Prof, at Franecker and Leyden. It was regarded as eminently 
a Scriptural system, supplanting the prevailing scholasticism, 
and destroying forever the influence of supralapsarian specula- 
tions, and it gradually found acceptance, under appropriate mod- 
ifications, with Lutherans and Arminians as well as Calvinists. 

Two things however are historically certain — 1st. That the 
idea of a covenant with Adam including his descendants had 
long before been clearly conceived and prominently advanced. 
This was done by Catherinus before the " Council of Trent " 
(Father Paul's "Hist. Council Trent," pp. 175, 177), and by 
such men among Protestants as Hyperius (fl567), Olevianus 
(circum. 1563), and Raphael Eglin (Dorner's "Hist, Prot. Theo.," 
Vol. II., pp. 31-45). 

2d. That the essential ideas of federal representation were 
long and very generally prevalent among Protestant theologi- 
ans from the beginning. Dr. Charles P. Krauth says, with re- 
spect to Lutheran theology as a whole, "The reasons assigned 
for the imputation and transmission centre in the representa- 
tive character of Adam (and Eve). The technicalities of the 
federal idea are late in appearing, but the essential idea itself 
comes in from the beginning in our theology." Melanchthon 



THE AUGUSTINIAN THEORY EXAMINED. 363 

said, " Adam and Eve merited guilt and depravity for their pos- 
terity, because integrity had been bestowed on our first parents, 
that they might preserve them for their entire posterity, and 
in this trial they represented the whole human race." — "Expli- 
catio Symbol! Niceni, Corp. Kefor.," xxiii. 403 and 583. 

Chemnitz (1522-1586), "Loci. Theo.," fol. 213, 214, says, 
" God deposited those gifts with which he willed to adorn human 
nature with Adam, on this condition, that if he kept them for 
himself he should keep them for his posterity; but if he lost 
them and depraved himself, he should beget children after his 
own likeness." — Hutter, Wittenberg (f 1616), Lb. " Chr. Con. 
Expli.," 90. "Adam represented the whole human race." Thus 
also James Arminius (fl609) (Disp. 31, Thes. ix); John Owen 
(1616-1683) ("Justification," p. 286), and West "Conf. Faith," 
Ch. yii. § 2, and " L. Cat.," 22 (1646 and 1647). 

Hence it appears that when theological writers, subsequent 
to the prevalence of the realistic philosophy, explain our moral 
oneness with Adam by the uninterpreted general phrases "that 
we sinned in him being in his loins," or " he being our Eoot," 
they are not to be understood as excluding all reference to rep- 
resentation, or to covenant responsibility. The language holds 
true under either theory, or when both are combined in one 
notion. And from the interchange of terms it is certain that 
very often both theories were latent under a common general 
notion. 

16. What can be fairly adduced in support of the Augustinian 
mode of explaining our moral oneness with Adam ? 

This view explains our moral oneness entirely on the ground 
of his being the natural head and root of the race, and the con- 
sequent physical or organic oneness of the whole race in him. 

It may be fairly argued in behalf of this view — 1st. That if 
it can be proved that we were "guilty coagents with Adam in 
his sin," the highest and most satisfactory reason possible is 
assigned for the righteous immediate imputation of the guilt 
of that sin to us. 

2d. The analogy, as far as it goes, of all God's providential 
dealings, both general and special, with mankind. God's cove- 
nants with Noah, Abraham, and David embrace the children 
with the parents, and rest upon the natural relations of gen- 
erator and generated. The constitutions alike of the Jewish 
and Christian Churches provide that the rights of infants are 
predetermined by the status of their parents. This is, of course, 
determined by a gracious covenant, yet that covenant presup- 
poses the more fundamental and general natural relation of 
generation and education. All human condition and charac- 



364 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. 

ter, aside from any supernatural intervention, is determined by 
historical conditions. Hugh Miller ("Testimony of the Rocks ") 
says, as a Christian scientist: "It is a fact broad and palpable 
as the economy of nature, that . . . lapsed progenitors, when 
cut off from civilization and all external interference of a mis- 
sionary character, become founders of a lapsed race. The in- 
iquities of the parents are visited upon their children." "It is 
one of the inevitable consequences of that nature of man which 
the Creator ' bound fast in fate,' while he left free his will, that 
the free-will of the parent should become the destiny of the 
child." 

17. What can be fairly argued against the sufficiency of this 
explanation of the ground of the immediate imputation of the guilt 
of Adam s first sin ? 

1st. Observe (1) that the Jewish and Christian Churches, to 
whom the second commandment (Ex. xx. 5) was given, and 
the children of Noah, Abraham, and David were embraced 
under special gracious covenants. (2.) Observe that in cases 
in which God visits the iniquities of parents upon their chil- 
dren in natural providence, irrespective of any special cove- 
nant obligations, God is acting with a most just though sov- 
ereign discretion in dealing with rebels already under previous 
righteous condemnation. 

2d. When the Natural Headship of Adam is referred to in 
general terms, and we are said to have been in him as a 
"Root," or as "branches in a tree," the notion is unsatisfactory, 
because (1) utterly indefinite. (2.) Because it is, as far as it 
goes, material and mechanical, and therefore utterly fails to 
exjDiain moral responsibility, which is essentially spiritual and 
personal. (3.) Besides this notion at least latently assumes 
the fallacy that the laws of natural development are either 
necessary limits of divine agency, or agents independent of 
him, or independent concauses with him. The truth simply 
being that the constitution of nature is the creature and in- 
strument of God. (4.) This theory assigns no reason, either 
on the ground of principle or analogy, why only the first sin 
of Adam, and not all the subsequent sins of all ancestors, is 
imputed to posterity as the ground of parental forfeiture, 

3d. The idea of a non-personal but virtual or potential co- 
existence and coagency (see Dr. W. G. T. Shedd's "Essays" 
and "Hist. Christ, Doc," and Dr. Philip Schaff's " Lange. 
Rom.," pp. 192-194) as the sole basis of just moral responsi- 
bility has no support in that testimony of Consciousness, which 
is our only citadel of defence from materialism, naturalism, 
and pantheism. Consciousness gives us no conception of sin 



THE FEDERAL THEORY COMMENDED. 365 

but as a state or an act of a free personal agent. Even if im- 
personal, virtual, potential, moral coagency be a fact, it tran- 
scends both consciousness and understanding, and being dark 
itself can throw no light upon the mysterious facts it is ad- 
duced to explain and to justify. 

4th. When the attempt is made to expound this theory in 
the full sense of realistic philosophy the case does not appear 
to be improved. 

(1.) In pure realism humanity is a single, generic, spiritual 
substance which voluntarily apostatized and corrupted itself 
in Adam. Human persons are the individual manifestations 
of this common spirit in connection with separate bodily or- 
ganizations. But — (a.) If we so far leave consciousness be- 
hind how can we defend ourselves from pantheism? (b.) How 
are individual spirits justified and sanctified while the general 
spirit remains corrupt and guilty? (c.) How did the Logos be- 
come incarnate? (d.) How, finally, will part of this spiritual 
substance be eternally glorified, while another part is eternally 
damned. 

(2.) Dr. Shedd explains that the generic spiritual substance 
which sinned has since, through the agency of Adam, been dis- 
tributed and explicated into a series of individuals. But can 
a spirit be divided and its parts distributed, each part an agent 
as the whole was from which it was separated ? Is not this 
to confound the attributes of spirit and matter, and to explain 
spirit as material, and is not six pre-eminently spiritual and 
personal ? 

18. State the reasons which establish the superior satisfactory 
character of the Federal Theory of our oneness with Adam ? 

1st. The federal headship of Adam presupposes and rests 
upon his natural headship. He was our natural head before 
he was our federal head. He was doubtless made our federal 
representative because he was our natural progenitor, and was 
so conditioned that his agency must affect our destinies, and 
because our very nature was on trial (typically if not essen- 
tially) in him. Whatever, therefore, of virtue in this explana- 
tion the natural headship of Adam may be supposed to contain 
the federal theory retains. 

2d. The Covenant as shown above was an act of supreme 
divine grace to Adam himself It was still more so as it 
respects his descendants. All God's moral creatures are intro- 
duced into existence in a condition of real, though instable, 
moral integrity. This is obviously true of men and angels, 
and certainly equitable. They must, therefore, pass through a 
probation either limited or unlimited. Adam was under condi- 



366 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. 

tions to stand that graciously limited probation with every 
conceivable advantage. But, apparently, his descendants could 
have no fair probation except in his person. "Three plans 
exhaust the possible. (1.) The whole race might have been 
left under their natural relation to God forever. (2.) Each 
might have been left to stand for himself under a gracious 
covenant of works. (3.) That the race as a whole should stand 
for a limited period represented in its natural head. The first 
would have certainly led to universal sin. The second is the 
one Pelagians suppose actual. The third is incomparably the 
most advantageous for the whole." Dr. Robert L. Dabney's 
" Syllabus." The separate probation of nascent souls in infant 
bodies was certainly not to be preferred. 

3d. God certainly did as a matter of fact condition Adam 
with a promise of " Life," and the alternative of "Death," upon 
a special and temporally limited probationary test. The precise 
penalty threatened upon him, has been in its general sense and 
special terms (Gen. ii. 17 and iii. 16-19) inflicted upon all his 
posterity. 

4th. This view also is confirmed by the analogy which the 
Scriptures assert existed between the imputation of Adam's first 
sin to us, and the imputation of our sins to Christ, and of his 
righteousness to us. This, of course, implies necessarily that 
the race is one with Adam, and the elect one with Christ. And 
the analogy certainly is the more complete on the federal view 
of Adam's union with the race, than on that view which ignores 
it. Both the Covenant of Grace including the elect, and the 
Covenant of Works including the race, were gracious. Christ 
voluntarily assumed his headship out of love. Adam obediently 
assumed his out of interest and duty. God graciously chose 
the elect out of love, and graciously included the descendants 
of Adam in his representation out of benevolence. 

Does not the remaining mystery lose itself in that abyss 
which is opened by the fact of the permission of sin, before which 
all schools of Theists on this side the veil must bow in silence. 



CHAPTER XXII. 



All questions concerned with the general subject of Redemption will fall under the 

heads of — 
1st. The Plan of Redemption, including the Covenant of Grace and eternal Election, 

considered above, Ch. XI. 
2d. The Person and Work of Christ in the Accomplishment of Redemption. 
3d. The Application and Consummation of Redemption by the agency of the Holy 

Ghost, together with the Means of Grace divinely appointed to that end. 

THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

It is evident. — 1st. That as God is an infinite, eternal, and 
immutable intelligence he must have formed, from the begin- 
ning, an all-comprehensive and unchangeable Plan of all his 
works in time, including Creation, Providence, and Kedemption. 

2d. A Plan formed by and intended to be executed in its 
several reciprocal distributed parts by Three Persons, as Sender, 
and Sent, as Principal and Mediator, as Executor and Applier, 
must necessarily possess all the essential attributes of an eter- 
nal Covenant between those Persons. 

3d. Since God in all departments of his moral government 
treats man as an intelligent, voluntary, and responsible moral 
agent, it follows that the execution of the eternal Plan of 
Redemption must be in its general character ethical and not 
magical, must proceed by the revelation of truth, and the influ- 
ences of motives, and must be voluntarily appropriated by the 
subject as an offered grace, and obeyed as an enjoined duty 
upon pain of reprobation. Hence its application must possess 
all the essential attributes of a Covenant in time betAveen God 
and his people. 

1. What is the usage of the ivord ma in the Hebreiv Scriptures ? 

This word occurs more than two hundred and eighty times 
in the Old Testament, and is in our translation in the vast 
majority of instances represented by the English word "Cove- 
nant," in a number of instances by the word " League," Jos. 
ix. 15, etc., and once each by the words "Confederate," Gen. 
xiv. 13, and " Confederacy," Obad. 7. 



368 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

It is used to express. — 1st. A natural ordinance. " God's 
covenant with the day, the night," etc. — Jer. xxxiii. 20. 

2d. A covenant of one man with another. Jonathan and 
David. — 1 Sam. xviii. 3 and ch. xx. David and Abner. — 2 Sam. 
iii. 13. 

3d. The covenant of God with Noah, Gen. vi. 18, 19, as to 
his family ; and with the human race in him, Gen. ix. 9. The 
bow was "a token of a covenant." — Gen. ix. 13. 

4th. The "Covenant of Grace" with Abraham, Gen. xvii. 2-7, 
which Paul calls the "gospel," Gal. iii. 17. Circumcision was 
the "token of this covenant." — Gen. xvii. 11; comp. Acts vii. 8. 

5th. The same covenant as formed generally with Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob. — Ex. ii. 24, etc. 

6th. The same covenant, with special and temporary modifi- 
cations of form, constituting the National-Ecclesiastical Cove- 
nant of God with the people of Israel. The law of this Covenant 
on its legal side was written by Moses first in a book ("the 
book of the covenant," Ex. xxiv. 7), and then upon tables of 
stone ("the words of the covenant, the ten commandments, Ex. 
xxxiv. 27, 28), which were afterwards deposited in a golden 
chest, " the ark of the covenant." — Num. x. 33. 

7th. The covenant with Aaron of an everlasting priesthood. 
Num. xxv. 12, 13. 

8th. The covenant with David. — Jer. xxxiii. 21, 22; Ps. 
lxxxix. 3, 4. 

2. What is the New Testament usage of the term SiaBr/xrj ? 

This word occurs thirty-three times in the New Testament, 
and is almost uniformly translated covenant when it refers to 
the dealings of God with his ancient church, and testament when 
it refers to his dealings with his church under the gospel dispen- 
sation. Its fundamental sense is that of disposition, arrange- 
ment; in the classics generally that specific form of arrangement 
or disposition called a testament, which sense, however, it prop- 
erly bears in but one passage in the New Testament, viz., lieb. 
ix. 16, 17. Although it is never used to designate that eternal 
Covenant of Grace which the Father made with the Son as the 
second Adam, in behalf of his people, yet it always designates 
either the old or the new dispensation, i. e., mode of adminis- 
tration of that changeless covenant, or some special covenant 
which Christ has formed with his people in the v 7 ay of admin- 
istering the Covenant of Grace, e. g., the covenants with Abra- 
ham and with David. 

Thus the disposition made by God with the ancient church 
through Moses, the Old contrasted in the New Testament with 
the Neiv SiaB^xrj (Gal. iv. 24), was really a covenant, both civil 



DIFFERENT VIEWS HEID BY CALVINISTS. 369 

and religious, formed between Jehovah and the Israelites, yet 
alike in its legal element, " which was added because of trans- 
gressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was 
made," and in its symbolical and typical element teaching of 
Christ, it was in a higher view a dispensation, or mode of ad- 
ministration of the Covenant of Grace. So also the present 
gospel dispensation introduced by Christ assumes the form of 
a covenant between him and his people, including many gra- 
cious promises, suspended on conditions, yet it is evidently in 
its highest aspect that mode of administering the changeless 
Covenant of Grace, which is called the "new and better dispen- 
sation," in contrast with the comparatively imperfect " old and 
first dispensation" of that same covenant. — See 2 Cor. iii. 14; 
Heb. viii. 6, 8, 9, 10; ix. 15; Gal. iv. 24. 

The present dispensation of the Covenant of Grace by our 
Saviour, in one respect, evidently bears a near analogy to a will 
or testamentary disposition, since it dispenses blessings which 
could be fully enjoyed only after, and by means of his death. 
Consequently Paul uses the word diaQ?jxr/ in one single passage, 
to designate the present dispensation of the Covenant of Grace 
in this interesting aspect of it. — Heb. ix. 16, 17. Yet since the 
various dispensations of that eternal covenant are always else- 
where in Scripture represented under the form of special ad- 
ministrative covenants, and not under the form of testaments, 
it is to be regretted that our translators have so frequently ren- 
dered this term SiaB^Hrj, by the specific word testament, instead 
of the word covenant, or by the more general word dispensa- 
tion. — See 1 Cor. iii. 6, 14; Gal. iii. 15.; Heb. vii. 22; xii. 24; 
xiii. 20. 

3. What are the three views as to the parties in the covenant of 
grace held by Calvinists ? 

These differences do not in the least involve the truth of 
any doctrine taught in the Scriptures, but concern only the 
form in which that truth may be more or less clearly presented. 

1st. The first view regards the Covenant of Grace as made 
by God with elect sinners. God promising to save sinners as 
such on the condition of faith, they, when converted, promising 
faith and obedience. Christ in this view is not one of the par- 
ties to the covenant, but its Mediator in behalf of his elect, and 
their surety; i. e., he guarantees that all the conditions demanded 
of them shall be fulfilled by them through his grace. 

2d. The second view supposes two covenants, the first, called 

the Covenant of Redemption, formed from eternity between the 

Father and the Son as parties. The Son promising to obey and 

suffer, the Father promising to give him a people and to grant 

24 



370 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

them in him all spiritual blessings and eternal life. The second, 
called the Covenant of Grace, formed by God with the elect as 
parties, Christ being mediator and surety in behalf of his people. 

3d. As there are two Adams set forth in the Scripture, the 
one representing the entire race in an economy of nature, and 
the other representing the whole body of the elect in an econ- 
omy of grace, it appears more simple to regard as the founda- 
tion of all God's dealings with mankind, of whatever class, only 
the two great contrasted Covenants of works and of grace. The 
former made by God at the creation of the world with Adam, 
as the federal head and representative of all his posterity. Of 
the promises, conditions, penalty, and issue of that Covenant I 
have spoken under a former head, see Chapter XVII. The latter, 
or Covenant of Grace, formed in the counsels of eternity between 
the Father and the Son as contracting parties, the Son therein 
contracting as the Second Adam, representing all his people as 
their mediator and surety, assuming their place and undertak- 
ing all their obligations, under the unsatisfied Covenant of 
Works, and undertaking to apply to them all the benefits se- 
cured by this eternal Covenant of Grace, and to secure the per- 
formance upon their part of all those duties which are involved 
therein. Thus in one aspect this Covenant may be viewed as 
contracted with the head for the salvation of the members, and 
in another as contracted with the members in their head and 
sponsor. For that which is a grace from God is a duty upon 
our part, as St. Augustine prayed, "Da quod jubes, et jubes quod 
vis ; " and hence results this complex view of the Covenant. 

As embraced under one or other of these two great Cove- 
nants of works or of grace, every man in the world stands in 
God's sight. It is to be remembered, however, that in the sev- 
eral dispensations, or modes of administration of the eternal 
Covenant of Grace, Christ has contracted various special cove- 
nants with his people, as administrative provisions for carrying 
out the engagements, and for applying to them the benefits of 
his covenant with the Father. Thus, the covenant of Jehovah 
(the Second Person, see above, Chapter IX., Question 14) 
with Noah, the second natural head of the human family, 
Gen. ix. 11, 15. The covenant with Abraham, the typical be- 
liever, bearing the visible sign and seal of circumcision, and 
thus founding the visible church as an aggregate of families. 
This covenant continues to be the charter of the visible church 
to this day, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper 
now attached to it, signifying and sealing the benefits of the 
Covenant of Grace, to wit, eternal life, faith, repentance, obedi- 
ence, etc., on God's part, as matters of promise; on ours as 
matters of duty, i. e., so far as they are to be performed by 



DOCTRINE PROVED. 371 

ourselves. — Compare Gen. xvii. 9-13, with Gal. iii. 15-17. The 
national covenant with the Jews, then constituting the visible 
church, Ex. xxxiv. 27. The covenant with David, the type of 
Christ as Mediatorial King, 2 Sam. vii. 15, 16; 2 Chron. vii. 18. 
The universal offers of the gospel during the present dispensa- 
tion, also, are presented in the form of a covenant. Salvation is 
offered to all on the condition of faith, but faith is God's gift 
secured for and promised to the elect, and when given exercised 
by them. Every believer, when brought to the knowledge of 
the truth, enters into a covenant with his Lord, which he re- 
news in all acts of faith and prayer. But these special covenants 
all and several are provisions for the administration of the eter- 
nal Covenant of Grace, and are designed solely to convey the 
benefits therein secured to those to whom they belong. 

For the statements of our standards upon this subject, com- 
pare " Confession of Faith," chapter vii., section 3, with " L. 
Cat.," Questions 30-36. 

4. Prove from the Scriptures that a " Covenant of Grace" was 
actually formed in eternity between the Divine Persons, in which 
the "Son" represented this elect 

1st. As shown at the opening of this chapter such a Cove- 
nant is virtually implied in the existence of an eternal Plan of 
salvation mutually formed by and to be executed by three 
Persons. 

2d. That Christ represented his elect in that Covenant is 
necessarily implied in the doctrine of sovereign personal elec- 
tion to grace and salvation. Christ says of his sheep, " Thine 
they were, and thou gavest them me," and " Those whom thou 
gavest me I have kept," etc. — John xvii. 6, 12. 

3d. The Scriptures declare the existence of the promise and 
conditions of such a Covenant, and present them in connec- 
tion. — Isa. liii. 10, 11. 

4th. The Scriptures expressly affirm the existence of such a 
Covenant. — Isa. xlii. 6; Ps. lxxxix. 3. 

5th. Christ makes constant reference to a previous commis- 
sion he had received of his Father. — John x. 18; Luke xxii. 29. 

6th. Christ claims a reward which had been conditioned 
upon the fulfillment of that commission. — John xvii. 4. 

7th. Christ constantly asserts that his people and his ex- 
pected glory are given to him as a reward by his Father. — 
John xvii. 6, 9, 24; Phil. ii. 6-11. 

5. Who toere the parties to this Covenant of Grace; what were 
its promises or conditions on the part of the Father; and ichat its 
conditions on the part of the Son ? 



372 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

1st. The contracting parties were the Father representing 
the entire Godhead in its indivisible sovereignty; and, on the 
other hand, God the Son, as Mediator, representing all his elect 
people, and as administrator of the Covenant, standing their 
surety for their performance of all those duties which were 
involved on their part. 

2d. The conditions upon the part of the Father were, (1) all 
needful preparation, Heb. x. 5; Isa. xlii. 1-7; (2) support in 
his work, Luke xxii. 43 ; (3) a glorious reward, first in the 
exaltation of his theanthropic person " above every name that 
is named," Phil. ii. 6-11, and the universal dominion committed 
to him as Mediator, John v. 22; Ps. ex. 1; and in committing 
to his hand the administration of all the provisions of the Cov- 
enant of Grace in behalf of all his people, Matt, xxviii. 18; 
John i. 12; xvii. 2; vii. 39; Acts ii. 33; and, secondly, in the 
salvation of all those for whom he acted, including the provi- 
sions of regeneration, justification, sanctification, perseverance, 
and glory — Titus i. 2 ; Jer. xxxi. 33 ; xxxii. 40 ; Isa. xxxv. 10 ; 
liii. 10, 11; Dicks; "Theo. Lect.," Vol. I, pp. 506-509. 

3d. The conditions upon the part of the Son were — (1.) That 
he should become incarnate, made of a woman, made under 
the law. — Gal. iv. 4, 5. (2.) That he should assume and fully 
discharge, in behalf of his elect, all violated conditions and 
incurred liabilities of the covenant of works, Matt. v. 17, 18, 
which he was to accomplish, first, by rendering to the precept of 
the law a perfect obedience, Ps. xl. 8 ; Isa. xlii. 21 ; John ix. 4, 5 ; 
viii. 29 ; Matt. xix. 17 ; and, secondly, in suffering the full penalty 
incurred by the sins of his people. — Isa. liii. ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Gal. 
iii. 13; Eph. v. 2. 

6. In wliat sense is Christ said to be the mediator of the Cove- 
nant of Grace ? 

Christ is the mediator of the eternal Covenant of Grace be- 
cause — 1st. As the one mediator between God and man, he con- 
tracted it. 2d. As mediator, he fulfils all its conditions in behalf 
of his people. 3d. As mediator he administers it and dispenses 
all its blessings. 4th. In all this, Christ was not a mere media- 
torial internuntius, as Moses is called (Gal. iii. 19), but he 
was mediator (1) plenipotentiary (Matt, xxviii. 18), and (2) 
as high priest actually effecting reconciliation by sacrifice 
(Rom. iii. 25). 5th. The phrase ju£6iz^i SiaBTJx?^ mediator of the 
covenant, is applied to Christ three times in the New Testament 
(Heb. viii. 6; ix. 15; xii. 24); but as in each case the term for 
covenant is qualified by either the adjective "new" or "better, " 
it evidently here is used to designate not the Covenant of 
Grace properly, but that new dispensation of that eternal cove- 



CHRIST THE MEDIATOR AND THE SURETY. 373 

nant which Christ introduced in person in contrast to the less 
perfect administration of it which was instrumentally introduced 
by Moses. In the general administration of the Covenant of 
Grace, Christ has acted as sacerdotal mediator from the foun- 
dation of the world (Rev. xiii. 8). On the other hand, the first 
or " old dispensation," or special mode of administering that 
Covenant visibly among men, was instrumentally, and as to 
visible form, " ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator," 
i. e., Moses (Gal. iii. 19). It is precisely in contradistinction to 
this relation which Moses sustained to the outward revelation 
of those symbolical and typical institutions, through which the 
Covenant of Grace was then administered, that the superior 
excellence of the "new" and "better" dispensation is declared 
to consist in this, that now Christ the " Son in his own house" 
visibly discloses himself as the true mediator in the spiritual 
and personal administration of his covenant. Hence he who 
from the beginning was the " one mediator between God and 
man" (1 Tim. ii. 5) now is revealed as in way of eminence, the 
mediator and surety of that eternal Covenant under the "new" 
and "better" dispensation of it, since now he is rendered visible 
in the fulness of his spiritual graces, as the immediate admin- 
istrator thereof, whereas under the "first" and "old" dispen- 
sation he was hidden. — See Sampson's Com. on Hebrews." 
5th. As Mediator also Christ undertakes to give His people 
faith and repentance and every grace, and guarantees for them 
that they shall on their part exercise faith and repentance and 
every duty. 

7. In wliat sense is Christ said to be Surety of the Covenant of 
Grace ? 

In the only instance in which the term surety is applied to 
Christ in the New Testament (Heb. vii. 22), "surety of a better 
testament," the word translated testament evidently is designed 
to designate the new dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, as 
contrasted with the old. Paul is contrasting the priesthood of 
Christ with the Levitical. He is priest or surety after a higher 
order, under a clearer revelation, and a more real and direct 
administration of grace, than were the typical priests descended 
from Aaron. Christ is our surety at once as priest and as king. 
As priest because, as such, he assumes and discharges all our 
obligations under the broken covenant of works. As king (the 
two in him are inseparable, he is always a royal priest), because, 
as such, he administers the blessings of his covenant to his 
people, and to this end entering into covenants with them, 
offering them grace upon the condition of faith and obedience, 



374 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

and then, as their surety, giving them the graces of faith and 
obedience, that they may fulfil their part. 

8. What general method has characterized Christ's adminis- 
tration of his covenant under all dispensations ? 

The purchased benefits of the covenant are placed in Christ's 
hand, to be bestowed upon his people as free and sovereign gifts. 
From Christ to us they are all gifts, but from us to Christ many 
of them are duties. Thus, in the administration of the Covenant 
of Grace, many of these purchased blessings, which are to take 
effect in our acts, e. g., faith, etc., he demands of us as duties, 
and promises other benefits as a reward conditioned on our 
obedience. Thus, so to speak, he rewards grace with grace, and 
conditions grace upon grace. Promising faith to his elect, then 
working faith in them, then rewarding them for its exercise 
with peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, and eternal 
life, etc., etc. 

9. What is the Arminian view of the Covenant of Grace ? 

They hold, 1st, as to the parties of the Covenant of Grace, 
that God offers it to all men, and that he actually contracts it 
with all believers. 2d. As to its promises, that they include all 
the temporal and eternal benefits of Christ's redemption. 3d. As 
to its conditions, that God now graciously accepts faith and 
evangelical obedience for righteousness, in the place of that 
perfect legal obedience he demanded of man under the cove- 
nant of works, the meritorious work of Christ making it consist- 
ent with the principles of divine justice for him so to do. They 
regard all men as rendered by sufficient grace capable of fulfil- 
ling such conditions, if they will. 

10. In ivhat sense can faith be called a condition of salvation ? 

Faith is a condition sine qua non of salvation, i. e., no adult 
man can be saved if he does not believe, and every man that 
does believe shall be saved. It is, however, a gift of God and 
the first part or stage of salvation. Viewed on God's side it is 
the beginning and index of his saving work in us. Viewed on 
our side it is our duty, and must be our own act. It is, there- 
fore, as our act, the instrument of our union 'with Christ, and 
thus the necessary antecedent, though never the meritorious 
cause, of the gracious salvation which follows. Faith as the 
condition is of course living faith, which necessarily brings 
forth "confession" and obedience. 

11. What are the promises tvhich Christ, as the administrator 
of the covenant of grace, makes to all those who believe ? 



THE HISTORY OF THE COVENANT. 375 

* The* proVnise to Abraham to be a "God to him and to his 
seed after him" (Gen xvii. 7) embraces all others. All things 
alike, physical and moral, in providence and grace, for time and 
eternity, are to work together for our good. "All are yours, 
and ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's." — 1 Cor. iii. 22, 23. 

This gospel covenant is often called the " Covenant of 
Grace" as distinguished from the "Covenant of Redemption." 
See above, Q. 3, § 2. " He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." 
Mark xvi. 16. 

12. Prove that Christ ivas mediator of men before as well as 
after his advent in the flesh. 

1st. As mediator he is both priest and sacrifice, and as such 
it is affirmed that he is the "Lamb slain from the foundation 
of the world," and a "propitiation for the sins that are past." 
Rev. xiii. 8; Rom. iii. 25; Heb. ix. 15. 

2d. He was promised to Adam. — Gen. iii. 15. 

3d. In the 3d chapter of Gal. Paul proves that the promise 
made to Abraham (Gen. xvii. 7 ; xxii. 18) is the very same gos- 
pel that the apostle himself preached. Thus Abraham became 
the father of those that believe. 

4th. Acts x. 43. — " To him give all the prophets witness, that 
through his name, whosoever believeth on him shall receive 
remission of sin." — See 53d chap, of Is., also chap. xlii. 6. 

5th. The ceremonial institutions of Moses were symbolical 
and typical of Christ's work; as symbols they signified Christ's 
merit and grace to the ancient worshipper for his present sal- 
vation, while as types they prophesied the substance which 
was to come. — Heb. x. 1-10; Col. ii. 17. 

6th. Christ was the Jehovah of the old dispensation. — See 
above, Chap. IX., Question 14. 

13. Prove that faith was the condition of salvation before the 
advent of Christ, in the same sense that it is note. 

1st. This is affirmed in the Old Testament. — Hab. ii. 4; 
Ps. ii. 12. 

2d. The New Testament writers illustrate their doctrine of 
justification by faith by the examples of Old Testament be- 
lievers. — See Rom. iv., and Heb. xi. 

14. Shoiv that Christ, as administrator of the Covenant of Grace, 
gave to the members of the Old Testament Church precisely the same 
'promises that he does to us. 

1st. The promises given to Christ's ancient people clearly 
embrace all spiritual and eternal blessings, e. g., the promise 



376 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

given to Abraham, Gen. xvii. 7, as expounded by Christ, Matt 
xxii. 32, and the promise given to Abraham, Gen. xxii. 18; 
xii. 3, as expounded by Paul, Gal. iii. 16; see also Is. xliii. 25; 
Ezek. xxxvi. 27; Dan. xii. 2, 3. 

2d. This is plain also from the expectation and prayers 
of God's people. — 51st Ps. and 16th Ps. ; Job xix. 24-27; 
Ps. lxxiii. 24-26. 

15. How was the covenant of grace administered from Adam to 
Abraham ? 

1st. By promise. — Gen. iii. 15. 

2d. By means of typical sacrifices instituted in the family 
of Adam. 

3d. By means of immediate revelations and appearances 
of the Jehovah, or divine mediator to his people. Thus "the 
Lord" is represented throughout the first eleven chapters of 
Genesis as "speaking" to men. That these promises and sac- 
rifices were then understood in their true spiritual intent is 
proved by Paul. — Heb. xi. 4-7. And that this administration 
of the covenant of grace reached many of the people of the 
earth, during this era, is proved by the history of Job in Arabia, 
of Abraham in Mesopotamia, and of Melchisedec in Canaan. 

16. How teas it administered from Abraham to Moses? 

1st. The promise given during the preceding period (Gen. 
iii. 15), is now renewed in the form of a more definite cove- 
nant, revealing the coming Saviour as hi the line of Abraham's 
posterity through Isaac, and the interest of the whole world 
in his salvation is more fully set forth. — Gen. xvii. 7 ; xxii. 18. 
This was the gospel preached beforehand. — Gal. iii. 8. 

2d. Sacrifices were continued as before. 

3d. The church, or company of believers, which existed from 
the beginning in its individual members, was now formed into 
a general body as an aggregate of families, by the institution 
of circumcision, as a visible symbol of the benefits of the cove- 
nant of grace, and as a badge of church membership. 

17. What was the true nature of the covenant made by God with 
the Israelites through 3Ioses? 

It may be regarded in three aspects — 

1st. As a national and political covenant, whereby, in a 
political sense, they became his people, under his theocratical 
government, and in this peculiar sense he became their God. 
The church and the state were identical. In one aspect the 
whole system had reference to this relation. 

2d. It was in one aspect a legal covenant, because the moral 



THE HISTORY OF THE COVENANT. 377 

law, obedience to which was the condition of the covenant of 
works, was prominently set forth, and conformity to this law 
was made the condition of God's favor, and of all national 
blessings. Even the ceremonial system in its merely literal, 
and apart from its symbolical aspect, was also a rule of works, 
for cursed was he that confirmeth not all the words of this law 
to do them. — Deut. xxvii. 26. 

3d. But in the symbolical and typical significance of all the 
Mosaic institutions, they were a clearer and fuller revelation 
of the provisions of the Covenant of Grace than had ever be- 
fore been made. This Paul abundantly proves throughout the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. — Hodge on Romans. 

18. What are the characteristic differences beticeen the dispensa- 
tion of the Covenant of Grace under the law of Moses and after the 
advent of Christ ? 

These differences, of course, relate only to the mode of ad- 
ministration, and not to the matter of the truth revealed, nor 
of the grace administered. 1st. The truth was then signified 
by symbols, which, at the same time, were types of the real 
atonement for sin afterwards to be made. Now the truth is 
revealed in the plain gospel history. 2d. That revelation was 
less full as well as less clear. 3d. It was so encumbered with 
ceremonies as to be comparatively a carnal dispensation. The 
present dispensation is spiritual. 4th. It was confined to one 
people. The present dispensation, disembarrassed from all na- 
tional organizations, embraces the whole earth. 5th. The for- 
mer method of administration was evidently preparatory to the 
present, which is final. 

For the Calvinistic view of the " Covenant of Grace," see 
Turretin, "Inst. Theo. flench.," Loc. 12. ; AVitsius, "JEcon. of the 
Co vs." For Arminian view see Fletcher's works and Richard 
Watson's u Inst. of Theo." 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

1. How can it be proved that the promised Messiah of the Jewish 
Scriptures has already come, and that Jesus Christ is that person ? 

We prove that he must have already come by showing that 
the conditions of time and circumstances, which the prophets 
declare should mark his advent, are no longer possible. We 
prove, secondly, that Jesus of Nazareth was that person by 
showing that every one of those conditions was fulfilled in him. 

2. Prove that Gen. xlix. 10, refers to the Messiah, and shoiv how 
it proves that tJie Messiah must have already come. 

The original word translated shiloh, signifies peace, and is 
applied to the Messiah. — Compare Micah v. 2, 5, with Matt, 
ii. 6. Besides, it is only to the Messiah that the gathering of 
the nations is to be. — See Isa. lv. 5 ; lx. 3 ; Hag. ii. 7. The Jews, 
moreover, have always understood this passage as referring to 
the Messiah. 

Up to the time of the birth of Jesus Christ the sceptre and 
the lawgiver did remain with Judah ; but seventy years after 
his birth, at the destruction of Jerusalem, they finally departed. 
If the advent of the Messiah had not occurred previously this 
prophecy is false. 

3. Do the same with reference to the prophecy of Dan. ix. 24-27. 

This prophecy refers 'expressly to the Messiah, and to his 
peculiar and exclusive work. That the seventy weeks here 
mentioned are to be interpreted w r eeks of years is certain, 1st, 
from the fact that it was the Jewish custom so to divide time ; 
2d, from the fact that this was precisely the common usage of 
the prophetical books, see Ezek. iv. 6 ; Rev. xii. 6 ; xiii. 5 ; 3d, 
from the fact that the literal application of the language as 
seventy common weeks is impracticable. 

The prophecy is, that seven weeks of years, or forty-nine 
years from the end of the captivity, the city would be rebuilt. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES FULFILLED. 379 

That sixty-two weeks of years, or four hundred and thirty-four 
years after the rebuilding of the city, the Messiah should ap- 
pear, and that during the period of one week of years he should 
confirm the covenant, and in the midst of the week be cut off. 
There is some doubt as to the precise date from which the 
calculation ought to commence. The greatest difference, how- 
ever, is only ten years, and the most probable date causes the 
prophecy to coincide precisely with the history of Jesus Christ. 

4. What prophecies, reletting to the time, place, and circum- 
stances of the birth of the Messiah, have beenfulfiUed in Jesus of 
Nazareth ? 

As to time, it was predicted that he should come before the 
sceptre departed from Judah (Gen. xlix. 10), at the end of four 
hundred and ninety years after the going forth of the command 
to rebuild Jerusalem, and while the second temple was still 
standing. — Hag. ii. 9; Mai. iii. 1. 

As to place and circumstances, he was to be born in Bethle- 
hem (Micah v. 2), of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David. 
Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. He was to be born of a virgin, Isa. vii. 14; 
and to be preceded by a forerunner. — Mai. iii. 1. All these 
met in Jesus Christ, and can never again be fulfilled in another, 
since the genealogies of tribes and families have been lost. 

5. What remarkable characteristics of the 31essiah, as desanbed 
in the Old Testament, ivere verified in our Saviour ? 

He was to be a king and conqueror of universal empire, Ps. 
ii. 6 and Ps. xlv. ; Isa. ix. 6, 7; and yet. despised and rejected, a 
man of sorrow, a prisoner, pouring forth his soul unto death. 
Isa. liii. He was to be a light to lighten the Gentiles, and 
under his administration the moral condition of the whole earth 
was to be changed. — Isa. xlii. 6; xlix. 6; Ix. 1-7. His death 
was to be vicarious. — Isa. liii. 5, 9, 12. He was to enter the 
city riding upon an ass. — Zech. ix. 9. He was to be sold for 
thirty pieces of silver, and his price purchase a potter's field. 
Zech. xi. 12, 13. His garments were to be parted by lot. — Ps. 
xxii. 18. They were to give him vinegar to drink. — Ps. lxix. 21. 
The very words he was to utter on the cross are predicted, Ps. 
xxii. 1; also that he should be pierced, Zech. xii. 10; and make 
his grave with the wicked and with the rich, Isa. liii. 9. — See 
Dr. Alexander's "Evidences of Christianity." 

6. What peailiar work teas the Messiah to accomplish, which 
has been performed by Christ ? 

All his mediatorial offices were predicted in substance. He 
was to do the work of a prophet (Is. xlii. 6 ; lx. 3), and that of 



380 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

a priest (Is. liii. 10), to make reconciliation for sin (Dan. ix. 24). 
As king, lie was to administer the several dispensations of his 
kingdom, closing one and introducing another, sealing up the 
vision and prophecy, causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease 
(Dan. ix. 24), and setting up a kingdom that should never cease 
(Dan. ii. 44). 

7. State the five points involved in the church doctrine as to the 
Person of Christ. 

1st. Jesus of Nazareth was very God, possessing the divine 
nature and all its essential attributes. 2d. He is also true man, 
his human nature derived by generation from the stock of 
Adam. 3d. These natures continue united in his Person, yet 
ever remain true divinity and true humanity, unmixed and as 
to essence unchanged. So that Christ possesses at once in the 
unity of his Person two spirits with all their essential attri- 
butes, a human consciousness, mind, heart, and will, and a 
divine consciousness, mind, feeling, and will. u Gemina sub- 
stantia, gemina mens, gemina sapientia robur et virtus" — "Admo- 
nitio Neostadtiensis," 1581, of which Ursinus w T as the principal 
author. Yet it does not become us to attempt to explain the 
manner in which the two spirits mutually affect each other, or 
how far they meet in one consciousness, nor how the two wills 
co-operate in one activity, in the union of the one person. 
4th. Nevertheless they constitute as thus united one single 
Person, and the attributes of both natures belong to the one 
Person. 5th. This Personality is not a new one constituted by 
the union of the two natures in the womb of the Virgin, but it 
is the eternal and immutable Person of the \oyos, which in 
time assumed into itself a nascent human nature, and ever 
subsequently embraces the human nature with the divine in 
the Personality which eternally belongs to the latter. 

8. How may it be proved that Christ is really a man ? 

He is called man. — 1 Tim. ii. 5. His most common title 
is Son of Man, Matt. xiii. 37, also seed of the woman, Gen. 
iii. 15; the seed of Abraham, Acts iii. 25; Son of David, and 
fruit of his loins, Luke i. 32; made of a woman. — Gal. iv. 4. 
He had a body, ate, drank, slept, and increased in stature, Luke 
ii. 52; and through a life of thirty-three years was recognized 
by all men as a true man. He died in agony on the cross, was 
buried, rose, and proved his identity by physical signs. — Luke 
xxiv. 36-44. He had a reasonable soul, for he increased in wis- 
dom. He exercised the common feelings of our nature, he 
groaned in spirit and was troubled, he wept. — -John xi. 33, 35. 



THE DOCTRINE PROVED. 381 

He loved Martha and Mary, and the disciple that Jesus loved 
leaned upon his bosom. — John xiii. 23. 

The absolute divinity of Christ has been proved above, 
Chap. IX. 

9. How may it be proved that both these natures constituted but 
one person ? 

In many passages both natures are referred to, when it is 
evident that only one person was intended. — Phil. ii. 6-11. 
In many passages both natures are set forth as united. It is 
never affirmed that divinity abstractly, or a divine power, was 
united to, or manifested in a human nature, but of the divine 
nature concretely, that a divine person was united to a human 
nature. — Heb. ii. 11-14; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Gal. iv. 4; Kom. viii. 3 
and i. 3, 4 ; ix. 5 ; John i. 14 ; 1 John iv. 3. 

The union of two natures in one person is also clearly taught 
by those passages in which the attributes of one nature are 
predicated of the person, while that person is designated by a 
title derived from the other nature. Thus human attributes 
and actions are predicated of Christ in certain passages, while 
the person of whom these attributes or actions are predicated, 
is designated by a divine title. — Acts xx. 28; Rom. viii. 32; 
1 Cor. 'ii. 8; Matt. i. 23; Luke i. 31, 32; Col. i. 13, 14. 

On the other hand, in other passages, divine attributes and 
actions are predicated of Christ, while his person, of whom 
those attributes are predicated, is designated by a human title. 
John iii. 13; vi. 62; Rom. ix. 5; Rev. v. 12. 

10. What is the general principle upon which those passages are 
to be explained which designate the person of Christ from one nature, 
and predicate attributes to it belonging to the other ? 

The person of Christ, constituted of two natures, is one per- 
son. He may, therefore, indifferently be designated by divine 
or human titles, and both divine and human attributes may be 
truly predicated of him. He is still God when he dies, and still 
man when he raises his people from their graves. 

Mediatorial actions pertain to both natures. It must be re- 
membered, however, that while the person is one, the natures 
are distinct, as such. What belongs to either nature is attrib- 
uted to the one person to which both belong, but what is pecu- 
liar to one nature is never attributed to the other. God, i. e., 
the divine person who is at once God and man, gave his blood 
for his church, i e,, died as to his human nature (Acts xx. 28). 
But human attributes or actions are never asserted of Christ's 
divine vwdure, nor are divine attributes or actions ever asserted 
of his human nature. 



382 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

11. How have theologians defined the ideas of "nature" and 
"person" as they are involved in this doctrine? 

In the doctrine of the Trinity the difficulty is that one Spirit 
exists as three Persons. In the doctrine of the Incarnation the 
difficulty is that two spirits exist in union as one Person. 

" Nature " in this connection has been defined by the terms, 
" essence,"- " being," " substance." 

" Person " in this connection has been defined as " an indi- 
vidual substance, which is neither part of, nor is sustained by 
some other thing," or as "an intelligent individual subsistence, 
per se subsistens." The human nature in Christ never was "per 
se subsistens," but since it began to be as a germ generated 
into personal union with the eternal Second Person of the God- 
head, so from the beginning "in altero sustentatur." 

12. What were the effects of this personal union upon the Divine 
nature of Christ ? 

His divine nature being eternal and immutable, and, of 
course, incapable of addition, remained essentially unchanged 
by this union. The whole immutable divine essence continued 
to subsist as the eternal Personal Word, now embracing a per- 
fect human nature in the unity of his person, and as the organ 
of his will. Yet thereby is the relation of the divine nature 
changed to the whole creation, since he has become Emman- 
uel, " God with us," " God manifest in the flesh." 

13. What were the effects of that union upon his human nature ? 

The human nature, being perfect after its kind, began to 
exist in union with the divine nature, and as one constituent 
of the divine Person, and as such it ever continues unmixed 
and essentially unchanged human nature. 

The effect of this union upon Christ's human nature, there- 
fore, was — 

1st. Exaltation of all human excellencies above the standard 
of human and of creaturely nature. — John i. 14; iii. 34; Is. xii. 2. 

2d. Unparalleled exaltation to dignity and glory, above every 
name that is named, and a community of honor and Avorship 
with the divinity in virtue of its union therewith in the one 
divine Person. 

3d. As in the union of soul and body in the natural person, 
the soul although absolutely destitute of extension in itself, is 
in virtue of its union with the body present at once from the 
crown of the head to the sole of the foot, — that is virtually, if 
not essentially, present in conscious perception and active voli- 
tion, — so through its personal union with the eternal Word is 



COMMUNICATIO IDIOM ATUM. 383 

the human nature of Christ, (a) virtually present (although lo- 
cally in heaven) with his people in the most distant parts of the 
earth at the same time, sympathizing with each severally as 
one who has himself also been tempted, (b) rendered practically 
inexhaustible in all those draughts made upon its energies by 
the constant exercise of those mediatorial functions which in- 
volve both natures. 

Hence the church doctrine concerning the " communicatio 
idiomatum vel proprietatum " of the two natures of Christ. It 
is affirmed in the concrete in respect to the person, but denied 
in the abstract in respect to the natures; it is affirmed utrius 
natural ad personam, but denied utrius natural ad naturam. 

14. How far is the human nature of Christ included in tJie wor- 
ship due to him ? 

We must distinguish between the object and the grounds of 
worship. There can be no proper ground of worship, except 
the possession of divine attributes. The object of worship is 
not the divine excellence in the abstract, but the divine person 
of whom that excellence is an attribute. The God-man, con- 
sisting of two natures, is to be worshipped in the perfection of 
his entire person, because only of his divine attributes. 

15. State the analogy presented in the union of two natures in 
the persons of men. 

1st. Every human person comprehends two distinct natures, 
(a) a conscious, self-acting, self-determined spirit absolutely 
without extension in space, and (7;) an extended highly organ- 
ized body composed of passive matter. 

2d. These constitute but one person. The body is part of 
the person. 

3d. These natures remain distinct, the attributes of the spirit 
never being made common to the material body, nor the attri- 
butes of the body to the spirit, but the attributes of both body 
and spirit are common to the one person. The person is often 
designated by a title proper to one nature while the predicate 
is proper to the other nature. 

4th. The spirit is the person. When the spirit leaves the 
body the latter is buried as a corpse, while the former goes to 
judgment. At the resurrection the spirit will resume the corpse 
into the person. 

5th. While in union the person possesses and exercises the 
attributes of both natures. And in virtue of the union the un- 
extended spirit is present virtually wherever the extended body 
is, and the inert insensible matter of the nerve tissues thrill 



384 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

with feeling and throb with will as organs of the feeling and 
willing soul. 

16. What is the 'peculiar view as to the "communicatio idioma- 
tum" introduced into theology by the Lutherans? and state the rea- 
sons/or not accepting it. 

In connection with, and in the process of maintaining, his 
peculiar view as to the presence of the very substance of Christ's 
body and blood in, with, and under the bread and the wine in 
the Eucharist, Luther and his followers introduced and elabo- 
rated a doctrine that, in consequence of the hypostatical union 
of the divine natures in the one person of Christ, each nature 
shares in the essential attributes of the other nature. 

When they came to explain the matter more fully, they did 
not affirm that any distinctive attribute of humanity was shared 
by the divinity, nor that the human nature shared all the attri- 
butes of the divine; they affirmed in detail simply that the 
humanity shared with the divine in its omniscience, omnipres- 
ence, and power of giving life. 

The advocates of this doctrine were divided into two schools: 

1st. The most extreme and logically consistent, represented 
by John Brentz and the theologians of Tubingen. These main- 
tained that the every act of incarnation effected, as the essence 
of the personal union, the participation of each nature in the 
properties of the other. From his conception in the womb of 
the Virgin the human nature of Christ was inalienably endowed 
with all the divine majesty, and all those properties which con- 
stitute it. These were necessarily exercised from the first, but 
not manifested during his earthly life, their exercise being 
hidden. The facts of Christ's life during his estate of humil- 
iation are therefore explained by a voluntary Krypsis, or hiding 
of the divine properties of his humanity. 

2d. The other less extreme view was represented by Martin 
Chemnitz, and the theologians of Giessen. They held also, that, 
by the very act of incarnation the humanity of Christ was en- 
dowed with divine perfections. That as to his relation to space, 
"Logos non extra carnem, et caw non extra Logon." Yet they 
taught that the exercise of these perfections was not neces- 
sary, but subject to the will of the divine person, who causes 
his human nature to be present wherever and whensoever he 
wills, and who during the period of his humiliation on earth 
voluntarily emptied (Kenosis) his human nature of its use 
and exercise of its divine attributes. Prof. A. B. Bruce, D.D., 
"Humiliation of Christ," Lecture iii. — "The Lutherans held the 
exaltation of the humanity to meet the divinity, and (while on 
earth) the Kenosis of the humanity. The Reformed insisted on 



LUTHERAN VIEW REJECTED. 385 

the reality of the human life of Christ, and the self-emptying 
(Kenosis) of the divinity to meet the humanity. The Lutherans 
held the double life of the glorified humanity (the local pres- 
ence and the illocal omnipresence). The Keformed tendency 
was to recognize a double life of the Logos — totus extra Jesum, 
and totus in Jesu." 

We reject the Lutheran view because — 1st. It is not taught 
in the Bible. It really rests upon their mistaken interpretation 
of the words of Christ — " This is my body." 

2d. It is impossible to reconcile it with the phenomena of 
Christ's earthly life. It increases the difficulties of the problem 
it was invented to explain. 

3d. It virtually destroys the incarnation by assimilating the 
human nature to the divine in the co-partnership of properties, 
whereby it is virtually abrogated, and in effect only the divine 
remains. 

4th. It involves the fallacy of conceiving of properties as 
separable from the substances of which they are the active 
powers, and thus is open to the same criticisms as the doctrine 
of transubstantiation. 

17. How can it be sJioivn that the doctrine of the incarnation is 
a fundamental doctrine of the Gospel ? 

1st. This doctrine, and all the elements thereof, is set forth 
in the Scriptures with pre-eminent clearness and prominence. 

2d. Its truth is essentially involved in every other doctrine 
of the entire system of faith ; in every mediatorial act of Christ, 
as prophet, priest and king; in the whole history of his estate 
of humiliation, and in every aspect of his estate of exaltation ; 
and, above all, in the significance and value of that vicarious 
sacrifice which is the heart of the gospel. If Christ is not in 
the same person both God and man, he either could not die, 
or his death could not avail. If he be not man, his whole his- 
tory is a myth; if he be not God, to worship him is idolatry, 
yet not to worship him is to disobey the Father. — John v. 23. 

3d. Scripture expressly declares that this doctrine is essen- 
tial. — 1 John iv. 2, 3. 

18. In ivhat Creeds and by tohat Councils has this doctrine been 
most accurately defined? 

1st. The Creed of the Council of Nice, amended by the 
Council of Constantinople, and the Athanasian Creed, and the 
Creed of the Council of Chalcedon, are accurate and authorita- 
tive statements of the whole church as to this doctrine. They 
are all to be found above, Ch. VII. 

2d. The decision of the Council of Ephesus, a. d. 431, con- 
25 



386 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

demning the Nestorians, and affirming the unity of the Person ; 
the decision of the Council of Chalcedon (451) against Eutyches, 
affirming the distinction of natures; and the decision of the 
Council of Constantinople (681) against the Monothelites, af- 
firming that Christ's human nature retains in its unimpaired 
integrity a separate will as well as intelligence, closed the grad- 
ually perfected definition of the church doctrine as to the Per- 
son of Christ, and have been accepted by all Protestants. 

19. How may all Heresies on this subject be classified? 

As they seek relief from the impossibility which reason ex- 
periences in the effort fully to comprehend the mutual consist- 
ency of all the elements of this doctrine (1) in the denial of the 
divine element, (2) or in the denial of the human element in its 
reality and integrity, or (3) in the denial of the unity of the 
person embracing both natures. 

20. What 'parties have held that Jesus was a mere man ? 

In the early church the Ebionites, and the Alogi. At the 
time of the Reformation the Socinians. In latter times Ration- 
alists and Unitarians. For an account of their history and 
doctrines, see above, Ch. VI., Q. 11, and Q. 13, and below, at 
the close of this chapter. 

21. What parties denied Christ's true humanity and on ivhat 
grounds ? 

These speculations were all of Gnostic origin. Hence came 
the conviction that matter was inherently evil, and that innu- 
merable JEons, or great spiritual emanations from the absolute 
God, mediate between him and the actual world, nvevuava 
come from God, but matter is self-existent, and the animal 
souls of men come from some being less than God. Hence 
the Docetse (from doueoo to think, to appear) held that the 
human nature (body and soul) of Christ was a mere <parradjua, 
or appearance, having no real substantial existence. It was 
a mere vision or phantom through which the Logos chose to 
manifest himself to mankind for a time. 

22. State the Apollinarian Heresy. 

Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, circum. 370, of general re- 
pute for orthodoxy and learning, taught that as man naturally 
consists of a body, tichna, and an animal soul, t v XVf and a rational 
soul, xvevjua, all comprehended in one person, so in Christ the 
divine logos takes the place of the human -rtvevua, and his one 
person consists of the divine xvevjaa, or reasonable soul, and the 
human animal soul and body. He thus gets rid of the diffi- 



HERETICAL VIEWS. 387 

culty attending the coexistence of two rational, self-conscious, 
self-determining spirits in one person, and at the same time 
destroys the revealed fact that Christ is at once very man and 
very God. This was condemned by the Council of Constanti- 
nople, a. d. 381. 

23. What ivas the Nestorian Heresy ? 

This term rather expresses an exaggerated, one-sided ten- 
dency of speculation on this subject than a positive definable 
false doctrine. It is the tendency to so emphasize the dis- 
tinction of the two complete, unmodified natures in Christ, as 
to throw into the shade the equally revealed fact of the unity 
of his Person. 

This tendency was most conspicuous in the writings of 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, the leader of the Antiochian school, 
and from him it became the general character of that school. 
The theology of the Eastern Church of the fourth and fifth 
centuries was divided between the two great rival schools 
of Alexandria and Antioch. " In the Alexandrian school, an 
intuitive mode of thought inclining to the mystical; in the 
Antiochian, a logical reflective bent of the understanding pre- 
dominated. — Neander, "Hist.," Torrey's Trans., Vol. II., p. 352. 

Nestorius, who had been a monk at Antioch, became patri- 
arch of Constantinople. He disapproved of the phrase, "Mother 
of God" (Qeotokos), as applied to the Virgin, maintaining that 
Mary had given birth to Christ but not to God. Cyril, patri- 
arch of Alexandria, opposed him, and both pronounced anath- 
emas against each other. Nestorius .supposed, in accordance 
with the Antiochian mode of thought, that the divine and the 
human natures of Christ ought to be distinctly separated, and 
admitted only a dwacpeia (junction) of the one and the other, 
an evoiufj6i<i (indwelling) of the Deity. Cyril, on the contrary, 
was led by the tendencies of the Egyptian (Alexandrian) school, 
to maintain the perfect union of the two natures (cpv6iur) svaodis). 
Nestorius, as the representative of his party, was condemned 
by the Council of Ephesus, a. d. 431. — Hagenbach's " Hist, of 
Doct.," Vol. I., § 100. 

24 What icas the Eutychian or Monophysite Heresy ? 

Eutyches was an abbot at Constantinople, and an extreme 
disciple of Dioscuros, the successor of Cyril. He pressed the 
opposition to the Nestorians to the length of confounding 
the two natures of Christ, and hence holding that Christ pos- 
sessed but one nature, resulting from the union of Divinity 
with humanity. They were styled Monophysites. They were 
condemned by the Council of Chalcedon (a. d. 451), which 



388 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

adopted the statement communicated by Leo the Great, bishop 
of Rome, to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople. "Totus in 
suis, totus in nostris." 

25. What tvas the doctrine of the Monothelites ? 

The Emperor Heraclius attempted to reunite the Monophy- 
sites with the orthodox Church by adopting, as a compromise, 
the decision of the Council of Chalcedon as the coexistence 
of two distinct natures in the one Person of Christ, with the 
amendment that there was in consequence of the personal 
union but one divine-human energy (evepyeia) and but one 
will in Christ. In opposition to this the sixth (Ecumenical 
Council of Constantinople (a. d. 681), with the co-operation of 
the bishop of Rome, adopted the doctrine of two wills in Christ, 
and tivo energies, as the orthodox doctrine, but decided that 
the human will must always be conceived as subordinate to the 
divine."— Hagenbach's " Hist, of Doct.," § 104. With this de- 
cision the definition of this doctrine, as received by the whole 
church, Greek, Roman, and Protestant, was closed. 

26. What is the modern doctrine of Kenosis ? 

The old Socinian doctrine teaches that Jesus, a true man 
after his ascension, becomes the subject of an apotheosis, where- 
by he is exalted into a condition and rank between that of God 
and the universe. The Eutychians taught that the human 
nature was absorbed by and assimilated to the divine. The 
Lutherans taught that the human nature was endowed with 
the properties of the divine. The modern doctrine of Kenosis 
is that instead of man becoming God, or being personally united 
to divinity, God literally became man. It is taught with vari- 
ous modifications by Drs. Thomasius, Hofmann, Ebrard, Marten- 
sen, and others, and very clearly by Dr. W. F. Gess in a work 
translated admirably by Dr. J. A. Reubelt, of Indiana. 

The term signifies a voluntary emptying of himself, of his 
divinity, by the Logos. It is derived from Phil. ii. 7, kawdv 
enevGods, "he emptied himself," and is supported by such decla- 
rations as John i. 14. "And the Word ivas made flesh, and 
dwelt among us." 

I. The Father alone is from himself. He eternally commu- 
nicates the fulness of his divine essence and perfections to the 
Son, thus giving to him to have life in himself. The Son thus 
eternally flowing from the Father unites with the Father in 
communicating their fulness to the Spirit, and is himself the 
life of the world. 

II. "But the Logos is God; he has life in himself even as 
the Father ; his volition to receive life from the Father is the 



DOCTRINE OF KENOSIS. 389 

source of his life ; his self-consciousness is his own act. Hence 
it follows that he can suspend his self-consciousness." 

III. In condescending to be conceived of the Virgin, the 
Logos laid aside his self-consciousness, and with it the commu- 
nication of the Father's life to the Son, by which the Son has 
life in himself even as the Father, and hence his omniscience, 
omnipresence, and omnipotent government of the world was 
suspended. 

IV. When the substance of the Logos awoke to self-con- 
sciousness as the infant Jesus, it was as a true human infant, 
and he grew and developed in knowledge and powers, as a 
true man without sin, endowed with pre-eminent grace and 
the fulness of the indwelling Spirit of God. 

V. When glorified the ante-mundane eternal communica- 
tion of the fulness of divine life from the Father to the Logos 
recommenced, and though continuing truly human, he is no less 
truly God. He is again eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, and 
omnipresent. "Thus a man is received into the trinitarian life 
of the Deity, from and by the glorification of the Son." — " Script. 
Doc. Pers. Christ. Gess.," by Reubelt. 

This doctrine. — 1st. Does violence to the infinite perfections 
and immutability of the divine nature. 2d. It is not consistent 
with the Scriptural fact that Christ, while on earth, was real and 
absolute God. 3d. It is not consistent with the fact that the 
humanity of Christ was real humanity generated of the seed 
of Abraham. 4th. It is confessedly different from the imme- 
morial and universal faith of the Church. 

For a thorough discussion, see Dr. A. B. Brace's " Humilia- 
tion of Christ." 

Authoritative Statements. 

The Greek, Roman, and Protestant Churches all agree in accepting 
the definitions of the Creeds, those of Nice and of Chalcedon and the 
Athanasian (so called). — See above Chap. VII. 

The Lutheran Doctrine as to the Relations of the two Natures. 

"Formula Concordice" Pars. I., Epitome, ch. 8, % 11 and 12. — 
"Therefore not only as God, but also as man, he knows all things, and 
had power to do all things, is present to all creatures, and has all things 
which are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, under his feet, and 
in his hands. ' All things are given to me in heaven and on earth, ' and 
' he ascended above all heavens, and fills all things. ' Being everywhere 
present, he is able to exercise this his power, neither is any thing to him 
either impossible or unknown. Hence, moreover, and most easily, is he 
being present, able to distribute his true body and blood in the sacred 
Supper. But this is done not according to the mode and property of 
human nature, but according to the mode and property of the right hand 
of God. . . . And this presence of Christ in the sacred Supper is 
neither physical nor earthly, nor capernaitish (see John vi. 52-59), never- 
theless, it is most true and substantial." 



390 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

Pars. 2 ("Solida Declaratio "), ch. 8, $4. — "For that communion of 
natures, and of properties, is not the result of an essential, or natural 
effusion of the properties of the divine nature upon the human : as if the 
humanity of Christ had them subsisting independently and separate from 
divinity; or as, if by that communion, the human nature of Christ had 
laid aside its natural properties, and was either converted into the divine 
nature, or was made equal in itself, and per se to the divine nature by 
those properties thus communicated, or that the natural properties and 
operations were identical or even equal. For these and like errors have 
justly been rejected, etc." 

Luther says, ' ' Where you put God, there you must put the humanity 
(of Christ), they can not be sundered or riven; it is one person, and the 
humanity is more closely united with God than is our skin with our flesh, 
yea, more intimately than body with soul. " 

DOCTRINE OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES. 

"Confessio Helvetica Posterior •," ch. xi. — "We acknowledge, therefore, 
that in one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, there are two natures, and 
we say that these are so conjoined and united that they are not absorbed, 
nor confused nor mixed; but are rather united and conjoined in one 
person, being preserved with their permanent properties; so that we wor- 
ship one Lord the Christ, and not two; one we say, true God and man, 
according to his divine nature consubstantial with the Father, and accord- 
ing to his human nature consubstantial with us men, and in all things 
like us, sin excepted. Therefore, as we abominate the Nestorian dogma 
making two out of one Christ, and dissolving the union of the Person; 
so, also, we heartily execrate the madness of Eutyches and of the Mono- 
physites and the Monothelites, expunging the property of the human 
nature. Therefore, we in no wise teach that the divine nature in Christ 
suffered, or that Christ according to his human nature has hitherto been 
in this world, and so is everywhere. " 

"West. Con/.," Ch. 8, § 2.— "The Son of God, the second person in 
the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal 
with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon him 
man's nature, and all the essential properties and common infirmities 
thereof, yet without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy 
Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two 
whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, 
were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, 
composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, 
yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man/' 



CHAPTER XXIV. 

MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 

1. What are the different senses of the word Mediator, and in 
which of these senses is it used when applied to Christ ? 

1st. In the sense of internuntins or messenger, to explain 
the will and to perform the commands of one or both the 
contracting parties, e. g., Moses, Gal. iii. 19. 

2d. In the sense of simple advocate or intercessor, pleading 
the cause of the offending in the presence of the offended 
party. 

3d. In the sense of efficient peace-maker. Christ, as Media- 
tor, 1st, has all power and judgment committed to his hands, 
Matt, xxviii. 18, and ix. 6; John v. 22, 25, 26, 27; and, 2d, he 
efficiently makes reconciliation between God and man by an 
all-satisfactory expiation and meritorious obedience. 

2. Why ivas it necessary that the Mediator sliould he possessed 
both of a divine and human nature ? 

1st. It was clearly necessary that the Mediator should be 
God. (1.) That he might be independent, and not the mere 
creature of either party, or otherwise he could not be the 
efficient maker of peace. (2.) That he might reveal God and 
his salvation to men, "For no man knoweth the Father save 
the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." — Matt. xi. 27 ; 
John i. 18. (3.) That being, as to person, above all law, and as 
to dignity of nature, infinite, he might render to the law in 
behalf of his people a free obedience, which he did not other- 
wise owe for himself, and that his obedience and suffering 
might possess an infinite value. (4.) That he might possess the 
infinite wisdom, knowledge, and power requisite to administer 
the infinite realms of providence and grace, which are com- 
mitted to his hands as mediatorial prince. 

2d. It is clearly necessary that he should be man. (1.) That 
he might truly represent man as the second Adam. (2.) That 
he might be made under the law, in order to render obedience, 



392 MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 

suffering, and temptation possible. — Gal. iv. 4, 5 ; Luke iv. 1-13. 
(3.) "In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his 
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest." 
Heb. ii. 17, 18, and iv. 15, 16. (4) That in his glorified 
humanity he might be the head of the glorified church, the 
example and pattern to whom his people are "predestined to 
be conformed, that he might be the first-born among many 
brethren." — Rom. viii. 29. 

3. What diversity of opinion exists as to whether Christ acts 
as Mediator in one or both natures ? 

The Romanists hold that Christ was Mediator only in his 
human nature, arguing that it is impossible that God could 
mediate between man and himself. 

The very opposite has been maintained, viz., that Christ 
was Mediator only in his divine nature. 

The doctrine of the Bible is, that Christ was Mediator as 
the God-man, in both natures. 

4. How may the acts of Christ be classified with reference to 
his two natures? 

Theologians have properly distinguished (vide Turretin, in 
loco) between the person who acts and the nature or inward 
energy whereby he acts. 

Thus we affirm of the one man, that he thinks and that he 
walks. The same person performs these two classes of action 
so radically distinct, in virtue of the two natures embraced in 
his single person. So the single person of the God-man performs 
all actions involving the attributes of a divine nature in virtue 
of his divine nature, and all actions involving the attributes of 
a human nature in virtue of his human nature. 

5. How can it be proved that he ivas Mediator, and acted as 
such both in his divine and human natures ? 

1st. From the fact that the discharge of each of the three 
great functions of the mediatorial office, the prophetical, priestly, 
and kingly, involves the attributes of both natures, as has been 
fully proved under Question 2. 

2d. From the fact that the Bible attributes all his acts as 
Mediator to the one person, viewed as embracing both natures. 
The person is often designated by a term derived from the 
attributes of one nature, while the mediatorial action attributed 
to that person is plainly performed in virtue of the other nature 
embraced within it. — See Acts xx. 28 ; 1 Cor. ii. 8 ; Heb. ix. 14. 

3d. From the fact that he was Mediator from the founda- 
tion of the earth (see Chapter XXIL, Question 11), it is clear 



CHRIST OUR ONLY MEDIATOR. 393 

that he was not Mediator in his human nature alone ; and from 
the fact that the Eternal Word became incarnate, in order to 
prepare himself for the full discharge of his mediatorial work 
(Heb. ii. 17, 18), it is equally plain that he was not Mediator in 
his divine nature alone. 

6. In what sense do the Romanists regard saints and angels as 
mediators ? 

They do not attribute either to saints or angels the work of 
propitiation proper. Yet they hold that the merits of the saint 
are the ground and measure of the efficiency of his interces- 
sion, as in the case of Christ. 

7. How far do they ascribe a mediatorial character to their 
priests ? 

The Protestant holds that the church is composed of a com- 
pany of men united to one another in virtue of the immediate 
union of each with Christ the head. The Romanist holds, on 
the contrary, that each individual member is united immedi- 
ately to the church, and through the church to Christ. Their 
priests, therefore, of the true apostolic succession, subject to 
apostolic bishops, being the only authorized dispensers of the 
sacraments, and through them of Christ's grace, are mediators — 

1st. Between the individual and Christ, the necessary link 
of union with him. 

2d. In their offering the sacrifice of the Mass, and making 
therein a true propitiation for the venial sins of the people. 
Christ's great sacrifice having atoned for original sin, and laid 
the foundation for the propitiatory virtue which belongs to the 
Mass. 

3d. In their being eminent intercessors. 

8. How can it be proved that Christ is our only Mediator in the 
proper sense of the term ? 

1st. Direct testimony of Scripture. — 1 Tim. ii. 5. 

2d. Because the Scriptures show forth Christ as fulfilling 
in our behalf every mediatorial function that is necessary, alike 
propitiation and advocacy, 1 John ii. 1 ; on earth and in heaven, 
—Heb. ix. 12, 24, and vii. 25. 

3d. Because in virtue of the infinite dignity of his person 
and perfection of his nature, all these functions were discharged 
by him exhaustively. — Heb. x. 14; Col. ii. 10. 

4th. Because there is "complete" salvation in him, and no 
salvation in any other, and no man can come to the Father 
except through him. — John xiv. 6; Acts iv. 12. 

5th. There is no room for any mediator between the indi- 



394 MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 

vidual and Christ — (1) because he is our "brother" and "sym- 
pathizing high priest," who invites every man immediately to 
himself, Matt. xi. 28; (2) because the work of drawing men 
to Christ belongs to the Holy Ghost. — John vi. 44, and xvi. 14. 

9. What relation do the Scriptures represent the Holy Ghost as 
sustaining to the mediatorial work of Christ ? 

1st. Begetting and replenishing his human nature. — Luke i. 
35; ii. 40; John iii. 34; Ps. xly. 7. 

2d. All Christ's mediatorial functions were fulfilled in the 
Spirit; his prophetical teachings, his priestly sacrifice, and his 
kingly administrations. The Spirit descended upon him at his 
baptism, Luke iii. 22 ; and led him into the wilderness to be 
tempted, Matt. iv. 1 ; he returned in the power of the Spirit into 
Galilee, Luke iv. 14; through the eternal Spirit he offered him- 
self without spot to God. — Heb. ix. 14. 

3d. The dispensation of the Spirit, as "the Spirit of truth," 
"the Sanctifier," and "the Comforter," vests in Christ as Medi- 
ator, as part of the condition of the covenant of grace. — John 
xv. 26, and xvi. 7 ; and vii. 39 ; Acts ii. 33. 

4th. The Holy Spirit thus dispensed by Christ as Mediator 
acts/or him, and leads to him in teaching, quickening, sanctify- 
ing, preserving, and acting all grace in his people. As Christ 
when on earth led only to the Father, so the Holy Ghost now 
leads only to Christ. — John xv. 26, and xvi. 13, 14; Acts v. 32; 
1 Cor. xii. 3. 

5th. While Christ as Mediator is said to be our "TtapduXrjros" 
"advocate," with the Father (1 John ii. 1), the Holy Ghost is 
said to be our u 7tapccK\riroz" "advocate," translated "Comforter" 
on earth, to abide with us forever, to teach us the things of 
Christ, and to hold a controversy with the world.— John xiv. 
16, 26, and xv. 26, and xvi. 7^9. 

6th. While Christ is said to be our Mediator to make inter- 
cession for us in heaven, Heb. vii. 25 ; Kom. viii. 34, the Holy 
Ghost, by forming thoughts and desires within us according to 
the will of God, is said to make intercession for us with unutter- 
able groanings. — Kom. viii. 26, 27. 

7th. The sum of the whole is, "We have introduction to the 
Father through the Son by the Spirit." — Eph. ii. 18. 

10. On what ground are the threefold offices of propliet, priest, 
and king applied to Christ ? 

1st. Because these three functions are all equally necessary, 
and together exhaust the whole mediatorial work. 

2d. Because the Bible ascribes all of these functions to Christ. 
Prophetical, Deut. xviii. 15, 18; compare Acts iii. 22, and vii. 37; 



HIS OFFICE AS PROPHET. 395 

Heb. i. 2; priestly, Ps. ex. 4, and the whole Epistle to the 
Hebrews; kingly, Acts v. 31; 1 Tim. vi. 15; Rev. xvii. 14. 

It is always to be remembered that these are not three offices, 
but three functions of the one indivisible office of mediator. 
These functions are abstractly most distinguishable, but in the 
concrete and in their exercise they qualify one another in every 
act. Thus, when he teaches, he is essentially a royal and 
priestly teacher, and when he rules he is a priestly and pro- 
phetical king, and when he either atones or intercedes he is a 
prophetical and kingly priest. 

These were first grouped together as belonging to Christ by 
Eusebius (261-340), Bk. I, ch. iii. — "So that all these have a 
reference to the true Christ, the divine and heavenly Word, the 
only high priest of all men, the only king of all creation, and 
the Father's only supreme Prophet of prophets." 

11. What is the Scriptural sense of the word prophet? 

Its general sense is one who speaks for another with au- 
thority as interpreter. Thus Moses was prophet for his brother 
Aaron. — Ex. vii. 1. 

A prophet of God is one qualified and authorized to speak for 
God to men. Foretelling future events is only incidental. 

12. How does Christ execute the office of a prophet ? 

I. Immediately in his own person, as when (1) on earth 
with his disciples, and (2) the light of the new Jerusalem in 
the midst of the throne. — Rev. xxi. 23. 

II. Mediately, 1st, through his Spirit, (1) by inspiration, 
(2) by spiritual illumination. 2d. Through the officers of his 
church, (1) those inspired as apostles and prophets, and (2) 
those naturally endowed, as the stated ministry. — Eph. iv. 11. 

III. Both externally, as through his word and works ad- 
dressed to the understanding, and, 

IV. Internally, by the spiritual illumination of the heart. — 
1 John ii. 20, and v. 20. 

V. In three grand successive stages of development, (a.) 
Before his incarnation ; (b) since his incarnation ; (e) through- 
out eternity in glory. — Rev. vii. 17, and xxi. 23. 

13. How can it be proved that he acted as such before his 
incarnation ? 

1st. His divine title of Logos, " Word," as by nature as well 
as office the eternal Revealer. 

2d. It has been before proved (Chap. XXII., Question 11, and 
Chap. IX., Question 14) that he was the Jehovah of the Old 



in 



396 MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 

Testament economy. Called Counsellor. — Is. ix. 6. Angel of 
the Covenant. — Mai. iii. 1. Interpreter. — Job xxxiii. 23. 

3d. The fact is directly affirmed in the New Testament. — 1 
Pet. i. 11. 

14. What is essential to the priestly office, or what is a priest 
the Scriptural sense of that term ? 

As the general idea of a prophet is, one qualified and au- 
thorized to speak for God to men, so the general idea of a 
priest is, one qualified and authorized to treat in behalf of men 
with God. 

A priest, therefore, must — 

1st. Be taken from among men to represent them. — Heb. v. 
1, 2; Ex. xxviii. 9, 12, 21, 29. 

2d. Chosen by God as his special election and property. — 
Num. xvi. 5; Heb. v. 4. 

3d. Holy, morally pure and consecrated to the Lord. — Lev. 
xxi. 6, 8; Ps. cvi. 16; Ex. xxxix. 30, 31. 

4th. They have a right to draw near to Jehovah, and to 
bring near, or offer sacrifice, and to make intercession. — Num. 
xvi. 5; Ex. xix. 22; Lev. xvi. 3, 7, 12, 15. 

The priest, therefore, was essentially a mediator, admitted 
from among men to stand before God, for the purpose, 1st, of 
propitiation by sacrifice, Heb. v. 1, 2, 3; and, 2d, of inter- 
cession, Luke i. 10; Ex. xxx. 8; Rev. v. 8, and viii. 3, 4. 
Taken from Fairbairn's "Typology," Vol. II., Part III., Chap. iii. 

15. Prove from the Old Testament that Christ was truly a 
priest 

1st. It is expressly declared. — Compare Ps. ex. 4, with Heb. 
v. 6, and vi. 20; Zech. vi. 13. 

2d. Priestly functions are ascribed to him. — Is. liii. 10, 12; 
Dan. ix. 24, 25. 

3d. The whole meaning and virtue of the temple, of its ser- 
vices, and of the Levitical priesthood, lay in the fact that they 
were all typical of Christ and his work as priest. This Paul 
clearly proves in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

16. Shoiv from the New Testament that all the requisites of a 
priest were found in him. 

1st. Christ was a man taken from among men to represent 
them before God. — Heb. ii. 16, and iv. 15. 
2d. He was chosen by God. — Heb. v. 5, 6. 
3d. He was perfectly holy. — Luke i. 35 ; Heb. vii. 26. 
4th. He had the right of the nearest access, and the greatest 






HIS OFFICE AS PRIEST. 397 

influence with the Father. — John xvi. 28, and xi. 42 ; Heb. i. 3, 
and ix. 11, 12, 13, 14, 24. 

17. Show that he actually 'performed all the duties of the office. 

The duty of the priest is to mediate by (1) propitiation, (2) 
intercession. 

1st. He mediated in the general sense of the word. — John 
xiv. 6 ; 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; Heb. viii. 6, and xii. 24. 

2d. He offered propitiation. — Eph. v. 2; Heb. ix. 26, and 
x. 12; 1 John ii. 2. 

3d. He offered intercession. — Kom. viii. 34; Heb. vii. 25; 1 
John ii. 1. 

That this propitiatory work of Christ was real, and not 
metaphorical, is evident from the fact that it superseded the 
temple services, which were only typical of it. A type and 
shadow necessarily presupposes a literal substance. — Heb. ix. 
10-12, andx. 1; Col. ii. 17. 

18. What part of his priestly work did Christ execute on earth, 
and what part in heaven ? 

On earth he rendered obedience, propitiation, intercession. 
Heb. v. 7-9, and ix. 26, 28; Rom. v. 19. # 

In heaven he has presented his sacrifice in the most holy 
place, and ever liveth to make intercession for us. — Heb. vii. 
24, 25, and ix. 12, 24. 

19. In ivhat respects did the priesthood of Christ excel the 
Aaronic ? 

1st. In the dignity of his person. They were mere men. 
He was the eternal Son. They were sinners who had first to 
make atonement for their own sin, and afterwards for the sin 
of the people. He was holy, harmless and undefiled. — Heb. 
vii. 26, 27. He was perfect man, and yet his access to God 
was infinitely nearer, than that of any other being. — John x. 
30; Zech. xiii. 7. 

2d. In the infinite value of his sacrifice. Theirs could not 
cleanse from sin, Heb. x. 4, and were repeated continually. — 
Heb. x. 1-3. His sacrifice was perfectly efficacious, and once 
for all. — Heb. x. 10-14. Thus theirs were only the shadow of 
his. — Heb. x. 1. 

3d. In the manner of their consecration. They without, he 
with an oath. — Heb. vii. 20-22. 

4th. They, being many, succeeded each other by generation. 
He continueth forever. — Heb. vii. 24. 

5th. Christ's priesthood is connected with a "greater and 



398 MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 

more perfect tabernacle," earth the outer court, heaven the true 
sanctuary. — Heb. ix. 11-24 

6th. Christ's intercession is offered from a throne. — Rom. viii. 
34, and Heb. viii. 1, 2. 

7th. While several of the Old Testament servants of God 
were at once both prophet and king, as David ; and others both 
prophet and priest, as Ezra; Christ alone, and that in divine 
perfection, was at once prophet, priest, and king. Thus his di- 
vine, prophetical, and kingly perfections qualified and enhanced 
the transcendent virtue of every priestly act. — Zech. vi. 13. 

20. In what sense was Christ a priest after the order of Mel- 
chizedec ? 

The Aaronic priesthood was typical of Christ, but in two 
principal respects it failed in representing the great antitype. 

1st. It consisted of succeeding generations of mortal men. 

2d. It consisted of priests not royal. 

The Holy Ghost, on the other hand, suddenly brings Mel- 
chizedec before us in the patriarchal history, a royal priest, with 
the significant names " King of Righteousness " and " King 
of Peace," Gen. xiv. 18-20, and as suddenly withdraws him. 
Whence he comes and whither he goes we know not. As a 
private man he had an unwritten history, like others. But as 
a ro} 7 al priest he ever remains without father, without mother, 
without origin, succession, or end; and therefore, as Paul says, 
Heb. vii. 3, made beforehand of God, an exact type of the eter- 
nity of the priesthood of Christ, Ps. ex. 4. The prophecy was, 
"Thou shalt be a priest forever" or an eternal priest "after the 
order of Melchizedec." 

The similitude of this type, therefore, included two things : 
1st, an everlasting priesthood ; 2d, the union of the kingly and 
priestly functions in one person. — Fairbairn's "Typology," Vol. 
II., Part III., Chap. iii. 

21. How can it be proved that the Christian ministry is not a 
priesthood ? 

1st. Human priests were ever possible only as types, but 
types are possible only before the revelation of the antitype. 
The purpose of the Aaronic priesthood was fulfilled in Christ, 
and therefore the institution was forever abolished by Christ, 
Heb. x. 1, 9, 18. 

2d. Christ exhaustively discharges all the duties and pur- 
poses of the priestly office, so that any human priest (so-called) 
is an antichrist. — Heb. x. 14; Col. ii. 10. 

3d. There can be no need of any priest to open the way for 
us to Christ. Because, while the Scriptures teach us that we 



ALL BELLE VERS PRLESTS. 399 

can only go to God by Christ, John xiv. 6, they teach ns no 
less emphatically that we must come immediately to Christ, 
Matt. xi. 28; John v. 40, and vii. 37; Kev. iii. 20, and xxii. 17. 

4th. No priestly function is ever attributed to any New Tes- 
tament officer, inspired or uninspired, extraordinary or ordi- 
nary. The whole duty of all these officers of every kind is 
comprised in the functions of teaching and ruling. — 1 Cor. xii. 
28; Eph. iv. 11, 12; 1 Tim. iii. 1-13; 1 Pet. v. 2. 

5th. They are constantly called by different designations, 
expressive of an entirely different class of functions, as " mes- 
sengers, watchmen, heralds of salvation, teachers, rulers, over- 
seers, shepherds, and elders." — See "Bib. Repertory," Jan., 1845. 

22. In what sense are all believers priests? 

Although there can not be in the Christian church any class 
of priests standing between their brethren and Christ, yet in 
consequence of the union, both federal and vital, which every 
Christian sustains to Christ, which involves fellowship with 
him in all of his human graces, and in all of his mediatorial 
functions and prerogatives, every believer has part in the priest- 
hood of his head in such a sense that he has immediate access 
to God through Christ, even into the holiest of all, Heb. x. 
19-22; and that being sanctified and spiritually qualified, he 
may there offer up, as a "holy priest," a "royal priest," spiritual 
sacrifices, not expiatory, but the oblation of praise, supplication, 
and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ, and intercession for 
living friends, Heb. xiii. 15; 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9. 

They are by equal reason also prophets and kings in fellow- 
ship with Christ. — 1 John ii. 20 ; John xvi. 13 ; Rev. i. 6, and v. 10. 

Authoritative Statements. 

Catholic Doctrine of the Christian Priesthood. — " Council of Trent,'''' 
Sess. 23, ch. 1. — "Sacrifice and priesthood are, by the ordinance of 
God, in such wise conjoined, as that both have existed in every law. 
Whereas, therefore, in the New Testament, the Catholic Church has 
received, from the institution of Christ, the holy visible sacrifice of the 
Eucharist; it must needs also be confessed, that there is, in that church, 
a new, visible, and external priesthood, into which the old has been 
translated. And the sacred Scriptures show, and the traditions of the 
Catholic Church has always taught, that this priesthood was instituted 
by the same Lord our Saviour, and that to the apostles, and their suc- 
cessors in the priesthood, was the power delivered of consecrating, offer- 
ing, and administering his body and blood, as also of forgiving and of 
retaining sins." 

Protestant Doctrine. — " Conf. Helv." ii. cap. 18. — " The priestly office 
and the ministerial office differ exceedingly from each other. The for- 
mer is common to all Christians, the latter is not In the 



400 MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 

New Testament of Christ there is no more such a priesthood as that 
which existed among the ancient people, which had an external unction, 
sacred vestments, and numerous ceremonies, which were types of Christ, 
who by coming and fulfilling them has abrogated all these things. But 
he remains eternally the only priest, and lest we should derogate aught 
from him, we give the name of priest to none of the class of ministers. 
For our Lord himself has not ordained in the church of the New Testa- 
ment any priests to offer daily the sacrifice of his body and blood . . . 
but only ministers to preach and to administer the sacraments. " 

Socinian Doctrine as to the Mediatorial Offices of Christ. — The Racovian 
Catechism teaches that Christ is both Prophet, Priest, and King. But it 
occupies one hundred and eighty pages (Section v.) in discussing his 
Prophetical office, and only eleven pages (Section vi.) in discussing his 
Priestly, and nine pages (Section vii. ) his Kingly office. His death and 
the manner in which it contributes to our salvation is discussed (Sec. v. 
ch. 8.) under the head of his Prophetical office, while his Priestly work, 
though vaguely stated, is made to consist chiefly in his appearing in 
heaven as our advocate, his intercession being rendered prevalent with 
God by his virtues and sufferings as a martyr. 



CHAPTER XXV. 

THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, NECESSITY, PERFECTION, AND 

EXTENT. 

I. The Nature of the Atonement. 

1. Define the usage and true meaning of the different terms used 
in the discussion of this topic. 

1st. The present word used to designate the precise nature 
of Christ's work of self-sacrifice on the cross is "Atonement." 

In the Old Testament, it is used frequently to translate the 
Hebrew word iffl, to cover by an expiatory sacrifice. In the 
English New Testament it occurs but once, Eom. v. 11, and 
there translates the Greek word naraXXayr/, reconciliation. Its 
proper meaning is to make moral or legal reparation for a fault, 
or injury. In its Old Testament and proper theological usage, 
it expresses not the reconciliation effected by Christ, but that 
legal satisfaction which is the ground of that reconciliation. 

Its sense is too limited to express adequately the full nature 
of Christ's work as our Substitute, because while it properly 
denotes the expiation of guilt effected by suffering the penalty 
of sin, it fails entirely to express the fact that Christ also 
merited for us the positive reward of eternal life by his active 
obedience. 

2d. The old word used by the divines of the seventeenth 
century was " Satisfaction." This accurately and adequately 
expresses what Christ did. As the Second Adam he satisfied 
all the conditions of the broken covenant of works, as left by 
the first Adam, (a.) He suffered the penalty of transgression. 
(b.) He rendered that obedience which was the condition of 
"life." 

3d. The distinction between a penal and a pecuniary satisfac- 
tion. The first concerns crime and person, the other concerns 
debt and things. They differ. (1.) In crime the demand ter- 
minates upon the person of the criminal; in debt upon the 
thing due. (2.) In crime the demand is for that kind, degree, 
and duration of suffering that enlightened reason discerns to be 



402 THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, ETC. 

demanded by justice ; in debt the demand is precisely and only 
for the thing due, an exact quid pro quo. (3.) In crime a vica- 
rious suffering of the penalty is admissable only at the abso- 
lute discretion of the sovereign; and the consequent release of 
the criminal is a matter of grace ; in debt the payment of the 
thing due, by whomsoever made, ipso facto liberates, and its 
acceptance and the release of the debtor is no matter of grace. 
(Turretin L. xiv. Qs. 10). 

4th. The significance of the term Penalty and the dis- 
tinction between Calamities, Chastisements, and Penal Evils. 
Calamities are sufferings considered without any reference to 
the purpose with which they are inflicted or permitted. Chas- 
tisements are sufferings designed for the moral improvement 
of the sufferer. Penal evils are sufferings inflicted with the 
design of satisfying the claims of justice and law. " Penalty " 
is that kind and degree of suffering which the supreme legis- 
lator and judge determines to be legally and justly due in the 
case of any specific criminal. If these sufferings are endured 
by a substitute, they are no less the penalty of the law if they 
in fact satisfy the law. The nature and degree of the suffer- 
ings may be changed justly with the change of the person 
suffering, but the character of the sufferings as penalty remains, 
or the substitution fails. 

5th. The meaning of the terms Substitution and Vicarious. 
Substitution is the gracious act of a sovereign in allowing a 
person not bound to discharge a service, or to suffer a punish- 
ment in the stead of a person who is bound. The discharge of 
that service, and the suffering of that penalty by the substitute, 
and therefore the services and sufferings themselves, are strictly 
vicarious, that is in the stead of (vice) as well as in the behalf 
of the person originally bound. 

6th. Expiation and Propitiation. Both these words represent 
the Greek word iXadnedBcxi. When construed, as it constantly 
is in the classics, with t6v Be6v and rovs Qeovs it means to propi- 
tiate for sin, by sacrificial atonement. In the New Testament 
it is construed with rd.% djuaprias (Heb. ii. 17), and signifies to 
expiate the guilt of sin. Expiation has respect to the bearing 
which satisfaction has upon sin or the sinner. Propitiation has 
respect to the effect of satisfaction in thus removing the judicial 
displeasure of God. 

7th. Impetration and Application. Impetration signifies the 
purchase, or meritorious procurement by sacrifice, of that salva- 
tion which God provides for his own people, and Application 
signifies its subsequent application to them in the process com- 
mencing with Justification and Eegeneration, and ending in 
Glorification. 



DEFINITION OF TERMS. 403 

8th. The usage as to Atonement and Redemption. (1.) Dur- 
ing the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the words Redemp- 
tion and Atonement were used by all parties, Calvinist and 
Arminian, as equivalent, as in Baxter's and Dr. Isaac Barrow's 
treatises on "Universal Redemption " (See Dr. Cunningham's 
" Hist. Theo.," Vol. 2, p. 327, and Dr. H. B. Smith in Hagen- 
bach, « Hist, Doc," Vol. 2, pp. 356 and 357). Also " Conf. of 
Faith," ch. 8, § 1, and " L. Cat," Q. 59. (2.) In modern times 
some Calvinistic advocates of an indefinite atonement distin- 
guish between the terms thus. Atonement, or the sacrificial 
impetration of salvation, they claim to be made indefinitely for 
all men. Redemption, which they understand to include the 
intended application as well as the impetration of salvation, 
they hold to be confined to the elect (Dr. W. B. Weeks, in 
"Park's Atonement," p. 579). 

(3.) In the Scriptures Atonement (DnS3 — i\a6ju6s) signifies 
the expiation of guilt by means of a poena vicaria in order 
to propitiate God. But the Scriptural usage of Redemption 
{ccTtoXvtpoo6iC) is less definite and more comprehensive. It sig- 
nifies deliverance from loss or from ruin by the payment for us 
of a ransom by our substitute. Hence it may signify either 
(a) the act of one substitute in paying that ransom, when it is 
precisely equivalent to Atonement (Gal. iii. 13) ; or, (b) it may 
mean our consequent deliverance from some particular element 
of our lost condition, as "death," or the "devil" (Col. ii. 15; 
Hosea xiii. 14); or, our complete investiture with the full sal- 
vation thereby secured (Eph. i. 14; and iv. 30; Rom. viii. 23, etc.) 

9th. Meritum and Satisfactio. This distinction was first sig- 
nalized by Thomas Aquinas (tl274), " Summa Theologian," Pars, 
iii., Q. 48, 49. Christ as the Second Adam fulfils in our behalf 
all the conditions of the broken Covenant of Works. "Satisfac- 
tio" expresses the quality and effect of his entire earthly work 
of suffering obedience even unto death regarded as a suffering 
of the penalty, in order to the release therefrom of his people. 
"Meritum" expresses the quality and effect of the same work 
regarded as the rendering of that obedience which was for 
them the condition of life. In Protestant theology this dis- 
tinction is expressed by the terms active and passive obedience, 
or the one vicarious work of Christ, viewed (a) as a suffering of 
penal evils, (b) viewed as obedience to covenant requirements. 

2. State the difference between the "natural" the "federal" and 
the "penal" relations ivhich men sustain to the divine law. 

1st. Every moral agent is brought at the moment of crea- 
tion, in consequence of his nature, necessarily under obligation 



404 THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, ETC. 

to be conformed in state and act. to the divine law of absolute 
moral perfection, any want of conformity to which is sin. This 
relation is " natural," perpetual, inalienable, and incapable of 
being assumed by one person in place of another, or representa- 
tively sustained. 

2d. It pleased God graciously to place man at his creation 
under a special covenant, in which, upon condition of perfect 
obedience under a special test, and favorable conditions, for a 
limited period, he promised to endow the race with "eternal 
life," including establishment in an indefectable, holy character, 
and a heavenly inheritance forever. The penalty of instant 
"death" being the alternative. This is the "federal" relation 
to law, in which originally the whole race fell, represented by 
Adam, and in which subsequently the elect are made to stand, 
represented by Christ. 

3d. By the fall of Adam all men are brought into " penal " 
relation to the law, from which the elect are relieved, since it 
has been voluntarily assumed in their behalf by Christ. 

3. What is Antinomianism ? And show that this abominable 
heresy is in no degree involved in the common doctrine of the Prot- 
estant Reformers and their folloiuers. 

" Antinomianism," as the word imports, is the doctrine that 
Christ has in such a sense fulfilled all the claims of the moral 
law in behalf of all the elect, or of all believers, that they are 
released from all obligations to fulfil its precepts as a stand- 
ard of character and action. This horrible doctrine, slander- 
ously charged against Paul, is repudiated by him. — Kom. iii. 8, 
and vi. 1. 

In their natural reaction from the Papal doctrine of work- 
righteousness, Luther and Melanchthon at first used some un- 
guarded expressions which seem to suggest this heresy. But 
their entire theological system, the spirit of their lives, and the 
body of their writings, are as far as possible removed from it. 
When real Antinomianism was consistently taught by John 
Agricola (flSGG), he was strenously opposed and successfully 
refuted by Luther, and caused to retreat. Some hyper-Calvin- 
ists in the 17th century, in England, e. g., Dr. Crisp, rector of 
Brinkworth (f 1642), are charged with it, though they denied 
the inferences put by others upon their doctrine. It has often 
been ignorantly or maliciously charged upon Calvinism as a 
necessary inference by Arminians. As a tendency it naturally 
besets the human heart when religious enthusiasm is unquali- 
fied by Scriptural knowledge and real sanctification, and is one 
to which ignorant fanatics and all classes of perfectionists are 
liable to be betrayed. 



HIS ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 405 

It is evident that the doctrines of satisfaction by Christ, and 
of justification by the imputation of his righteousness, as held 
by the Lutheran and Eeformed Churches, have nothing in 
common with Antinomianism. Because they teach — (1.) That 
Christ discharges for his people only the federal and penal 
obligations of the law, and that his obedience and suffering in 
that relation constitute his righteousness, which is imputed. 
(2.) That the very end of his satisfaction is to "redeem us 
from all iniquity and purify unto himself a peculiar people, 
zealous of good works." — Titus ii. 14. (3.) Believers remain 
under the "natural" relation to the law, which is personally 
untransferable, in which they will be gradually perfected by 
that sanctification which the righteousness of Christ impetrates 
for them. — See " Vindication of Luther," by Julius C. Hare. 

4. Show how the 'perfect satisfaction of Christ embraces both his 
"active" and his "passive" obedience, and the relation ivhich each 
of these elements sustains to our justification. 

Christ, although a man, was a divine person. As such he 
voluntarily "was made under the law," and all his earthly obe- 
dience to the law under human conditions was as vicarious as 
his sufferings. His "active" obedience embraces his entire life 
and death viewed as vicarious obedience. His " passive " obe- 
dience embraces his entire life, and especially his sacrificial 
death, viewed as vicarious suffering. 

Adam represented the race under the original gracious 
covenant of works. He fell, forfeiting the " eternal life " con- 
ditioned on obedience, and incurring the penalty of death condi- 
tioned upon disobedience. Christ, the second Adam, assumes 
the covenant in behalf of his elect just as Adam left it. He 
(a) discharges the penalty — "the soul that sinneth it shall die," 
and (b) earns the reward — "he that doeth these things shall 
live by them." His whole vicarious suffering obedience, or 
obedient suffering is one righteousness. As "passive" obedi- 
ence it " satisfies " the penal demand of the law. As " active " 
obedience it merits for us eternal life from regeneration to 
glorification, -s The imputation of this righteousness to us is 
our justification. 

5. State the true doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction. 

1st. Negatively. (1.) The sufferings of Christ were not a 
substitute for the infliction of the penalty of the law upon 
sinners in person, but they are the penalty itself executed on 
their Substitute. (2.) It was not of the nature of a pecuniary 
payment, an exact quid pro quo. But it was a strict penal sat- 
isfaction, the person suffering being a substitute. (3.) It was 



406 THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, ETC. 

not a mere example of a punishment. (4.) It was not a mere 
exhibition of love, or of heroic consecration. 

2d. Positively. (1.) Its Motive was the ineffable love of God 
for the elect. — John x. 15 ; Gal. ii. 20. 

(2.) As to its Nature, (a.) Being a divine Person he assumed 
the legal responsibilities of his people under the conditions of a 
human being, (b.) He obeyed and suffered as their Substitute. 
His obedience and suffering were vicarious, (c.) The guilt, or 
just legal responsibility of our sins, were imputed to him, i. e., 
charged upon and punished in him. (d.) He did not suffer 
the same sufferings either in kind, degree, or duration, which 
would have been inflicted on them, but he did suffer precisely 
that suffering which divine justice demanded of his person 
standing in their stead, (e.) His sufferings were those of a 
divine Person in a human nature. 

(3.) As to its Effects, (a.) It was the effect not the cause 
of God's love. It satisfied his justice and rendered the exercise 
of his love consistent with his righteousness, (b.) It expiated 
the guilt of sin, and reconciled God to us as a righteous Euler. 
(c.) It secured the salvation of those for whom he died, pur- 
chasing the gift of the Holy Spirit, the means of grace, and 
the application and consummation of salvation, (d.) It did not 
ipso facto liberate, as a pecuniary satisfaction, but as a vicari- 
ous penal satisfaction its benefits accrue to the persons, at the 
times, and under the conditions, prescribed by the covenant 
between the Father and the Son. Its application is a matter 
of right to Christ, but of grace to us. (e.) Being an execution 
in strict justice of vicarious punishment it is a most effective 
and real example of punishment to the moral universe. (/.) Be- 
ing an exercise of amazing love it produces legitimately the 
most profound moral impression, melting the heart, subduing 
the rebellion, and dissipating the fears of convinced sinners. 

Biblical Proof of the Doctrine. 

6. State the argument in support of this doctrine derived from 
the nature of divine justice. 

It is obvious that God punishes sin, either (1) because of its 
intrinsic ill-desert, which is opposed to the essential and immuta- 
ble rectitude of his nature ; or, (2) because of the injury it does 
his creatures, from a principle of wise benevolence prompting 
him to restrain it by furnishing deterring motives ; or, (3) from 
pure sovereignty. 

But we have before proven (See above, Ch. VIII., Q. 59-66) — 
(1.) That the moral perfection of God is essential and funda- 
mental, and not a product of his self-determination. (2.) That 






DOCTRINE PROVED. 407 

his essential moral perfection includes a principle of justice 
which makes the punishment of sin an end in itself. (3). That 
virtue, and especially justice, can not be resolved into disinter- 
ested benevolence. 

The essential attributes of benevolence and justice do not 
conflict. Justice is free but not optional. Benevolence to the 
undeserving is grace, which is essentially optional. 

7. State the proof derived from the immutability of the divine 
laiv, and from the absolute truth of God. 

The will of God is freely determined by his nature. His 
law including precept and penalty is the expression and reve- 
lation at once of his nature and his will. As far as the law 
represents his nature and purpose it must be immutable. As 
far as it is a revelation of that purpose, its immutability is 
pledged by his inviolable truth. 

But — 1st. God has declared that his law is immutable, Luke 
xvi. 17, i. e., his revealed law in all its elements, if the cere- 
monial, a fortiori the moral law. 2d. It is declared that Christ 
came to fulfil and not to suspend or abate the law. — Matt. v. 
17, 18; Rom. x. 4, and hi. 31. 3d. It is affirmed that God will 
punish sin. — Gen. ii. 17; Ezek. xviii. 4; Rom. iii. 26. 

8. Show that the Scriptures teach that Christ suffered as our 
Substitute in the definite sense of that term. 

A substitute is one appointed or accepted to act or to suffer 
in the stead of another, and his actions or sufferings are vicari- 
ous. That Christ obeyed and suffered as the substitute of his 
people is proved — 1st. The preposition v-rcap with the genitive 
signifies "instead of" (John xi. 50; 2 Cor. v. 20; Philem. 13), 
and this construction is used to set forth the relation of Christ's 
work to us.— 2 Cor. v. 14 and 21; Gal. iii. 13; 1 Pet. iii. 18. 
2d. The preposition dwi defmitelv and always expresses sub- 
stitution (Winer, "N. T. Gram.," Pt. 3, § 47).— Matt. ii. 22; v. 38. 
This is rendered more emphatic by being associated with Xvrpor, 
ransom, redemption price. Christ came as a ransom in the stead 
of many. — Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 45 ; 1 Tim. ii. 6. Christ is called 
dyviXvrpov, i. e., substitutionary ransom. 3d. The same is proved 
by what the Scriptures teach as to our sins being " laid upon " 
Christ. — See below, Q. 9. 4th. And by what the Scriptures 
teach as to the nature of sacrifices, and the sacrificial character 
of Christ's work. — See below, Qs. 10 and 11. 

9. Do the same tvith regard to those passages which speak of 
our sins being "laid upon' Christ, and of his "bearing" sin or 
iniquity. 



408 THE ATONEMENT : ITS NATURE, ETC. 

Sin may be considered (1) in its formal nature as "trans- 
gression of law," 1 John iii. 4; or, (2) as a moral quality in- 
herent in the agent {macula), Kom. vi. 11-13; or, (3) in respect 
to its legal obligation to punishment (reatus). In this last 
sense alone is it ever said that the sin of one is laid upon or 
borne by another. 

1st. To impute sin is simply to charge it to one's account 
as the ground of punishment. (1.) The Hebrew word 3^n means 
to estimate, count, credit, impute as belonging to. — Gen. xxxi. 
15; Lev. vii. 18; Num. xviii. 27; Ps. cvi. 31. (2.) The same is 
true with regard to the Greek word Xoyi^ofxai. — Is. liii. 12; 
Kom. ii. 26; iv. 3-9; 2 Cor. v. 19. (3) The Scriptures assert 
that our sins are imputed to Christ. — Mark xv. 28 ; Is. liii. 6 
and 12; 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. 13. 

2d. (1.) The Hebrew word ?2p has the precise sense of bear- 
ing, not bearing away, or removing, but in the sense of carrying. 
Lam. v. 7. This is applied to Christ's bearing our sins. — Is. liii. 11. 
(2.) Also Nfcw has the sense, when construed with "sin," of bear- 
ing sin in the sense of being "penally responsible" for it. — Num. 
xxx. 15; Lev. v. 17, 18; xvi. 22. (3.) The Septuagint translates 
these words sometimes by atpoo, to bear, and sometimes by (pspao 
and dva<p€pa), which always means in this connection to bear 
on ones self in order to bear aicay. — Robinson, " Lex." Compare 
Matt. viii. 17 with Is. liii. 4. 

10. Show that the Jewish Sacrifices icere vicarious sufferers of 
the penalties to which the offerers icere exposed, and that they tcere 
in the strict sense typical of the Sacrifice of Christ. 

It is admitted by all that sacrifices prevailed among all 
heathen nations from the earliest times, and that they were 
designed to propitiate offended justice. 

I. That victims of the Jewish bloody sacrifices vicariously 
suffered the penalty due the sins of the offenders is proved — 
1st. From their occasion. — Lev. iv. 1 — vi. 13. This was some 
sin, including moral as well as ceremonial transgressions. 

2d. From the qualifications of the victims. They must be the 
highest class of clean animals intimately associated with man, 
e. g., sheep, bullocks, goats, pigeons, the individuals selected to 
be the most perfect of their kind, as to age, sex, and physical 
condition. — Lev. xxii. 20-27; Ex. xxii. 30, and xxix. 1. 

3d. From the ritual of the sacrifice itself. This included — 
(1.) The laying on of hands, with confession of sins. — Lev. i. 4; 
iii. 2; iv. 4; xvi. 21; 2 Chron. xxix. 23. This act always in 
Scripture expresses transfer from the person imposing to the 
person or thing upon whom the hands are imposed; e. g., of 



DOCTRINE PROVED. 409 

official authority, Deut. xxxiv. 9 ; Acts vi. 6 ; or of healing vir- 
tue, Matt. ix. 18; Acts ix. 12, 17; or of sin, Lev. xvi. 7-22. 
Eabbi Aaron Ben. Chajim says, " Where there is no confession 
of sins there is no imposition of hands." — Outram, "De Sacri- 
ficiis," D. 1., C. xv., §§ 8, 10, 11. Hence the victim, although 
perfect in itself, was always called riNttn sin, Lev. iv. 3, and 
ti&x guilt, Lev. v. 6. (2.) The slaying of the victim. It was 
offered by the sinner, and "accepted for him to, make atone- 
ment for him," Lev. iv., and then executed, "for it is the blood 
that maketh an atonement for the soul." — Lev. xvii. 11. (3.) 
The sprinkling of blood, in the case of ordinary sacrifices on the 
horns of the altar, but on the Day of Atonement the blood of 
the victim offered for the whole people was carried within the 
veil and sprinkled on the mercy-seat. — Lev. iv. 5, etc. This 
signified its application to the covering of sin, and its accept- 
ance by God. 

4th. From their effect which was always for giveness. "And 
it shall be forgiven him" was the constant promise. — Lev. iv. 
20-31 ; vi. 30, etc. It is expressed everywhere by the Hebrew 
word 1M, to cover sin, and by the Greek word i\d6x£6Qai, to ex- 
piate or propitiate. — See Lev. iv. and v. chs. ; Heb. ii. 17. The 
" mercy-seat " was called the n^iQS, iTiddrr/pior, propitiatorium, or 
seat of expiation. 

5th. This is the interpretation of these rites given by all 
learned Jews of subsequent ages. — See Outram, "De. Sac," D. 1., 
Chs. xx-xxii. 

II. That they were in the strict sense typical of the sacrifice 
of Christ is proved — 

1st. They are expressly called "shadows" of which Christ 
is the "body" and "patterns." — Heb. ix. 13-24; x. 1, 13; xi. 12. 

2d. Christ affirms that the lata as well as the prophets spoke 
of him and his work. — John i. 45 ; v. 39 ; Luke xxiv. 27. 

3d. He is declared to be "our Passover sacrificed for us." 
1 Cor. v. 7 and Luke xxiv. 44. Compare Exodus xii. 46 and 
Num. ix. 12. 

4th. He is declared to be "sacrificed" for his people, by his 
"blood" being made a sin-offering, etc. — John i. 29; Heb. ix. 26, 
28; x. 12, 14; 1 Pet. i. 19; Eph. v. 2; 2 Cor. v. 21. 

5th. He is everywhere declared to accomplish for the man 
who comes to God through him precisely what the ancient 
sacrifices did on a lower sphere. — Gal. iii. 13; Matt. xx. 28; 
1 John ii. 2, and iv. 10; Rom. iii. 24, 25, and v. 9, 10; Eph. i. 7, 
andii. 13; Col. i. 14-20. 

11. Exhibit the argument derived from the fact that Christ made 
satisfaction for his people as their High Priest. 



410 THE ATONEMENT : ITS NATURE, ETC. 

I. The priest was — 1st. A man taken from among men to 
represent them in things pertaining to God. — Heb. v. 1. This 
was especially true of the high priest. " He represented the 
whole people, all Israel were reckoned as being in him." 
Vitringa, "Obs. Sac," p. 292; Ex. xxviii. 9-29. If he sinned 
it was regarded as the sin of the whole people. — Lev. iv. 3. 
He wore the names of all the tribes on his breastplate. He 
placed his hands upon the scape-goat and confessed the sin 
of the whole people. — Lev. xvi. 15-21. 

2d. He had a right to "bring near" to God, and all the 
people had access to God only through the priest, especially 
the High Priest. — Num. xvi. 5. 

3d. This the priest effected by propitiary sacrifices and in- 
tercession. — See above, Ques. 10. Heb. v. 1-3; Num. vi. 22-27. 

II. Christ is declared to save his people in the character of 
a High Priest. 1st. He is expressly asserted both in the Old 
Testament and in the New to be* a Priest. — Ps. ex. 4; Zech. 
vi. 13; Heb. v. 6. 

2d. He possessed all the qualifications for the office. (1.) He 
was chosen from among men to represent them. — Compare 
Heb. v. 1, 2 with Heb. ii. 14-18 and iv. 15. (2.) He was cho- 
sen of God. — Heb. v. 4-6. (3.) He was holy. — Heb. vii. 26. 
(4.) He possessed right of access to God. — Heb. i. 3; ix. 11-14. 

3d. He discharged all the functions of a priest. — Daniel 
ix. 24-26; Eph. v. 2; Heb. ix. 26; x. 12; 1 John ii. 1. 

4th. The instant Christ's work was accomplished the veil of 
the temple was rent in twain, and the whole typical sacrificial 
system was discharged as functus officio. — Matt, xxvii. 50, 51. 

12. Prove the truth of the doctrine as to the nature of the satis- 
faction of Christ above stated from the effects which are attributed 
to it in Scripture. 

1st. As these effects respect God they are declared to be 
propitiation and reconciliation. (1.) i\a6x£6Bai signifies to pro- 
pitiate an offended Deity by means of expiatory sacrifice. — Heb. 
ii. 17; 1 John ii. 2, and iv. 10; Kom. iii. 25. (2.) 153 in respect 
to sin a covering, and in respect to God propitiation. It is 
properly translated in our version to make atonement, to appease, 
to pacify, to reconcile, to purge, to purge away, Ezek. xvi. 63; 
Gen. xxxii. 20, 21; Ps. lxv. 3, 4; lxxviii. 38; 1 Sam. iii. 14; Num. 
xxxv. 33; to ransom, Ps. xlix. 7 ; to make satisfaction, Num. xxxv. 
31, 32. (3.) Kara'\Xd66Eiv, to reconcile — by the death of Christ, 
not imputing transgressions, justifying by blood, etc., Rom. v. 
9, 10; 2 Cor. v. 18-20. 

2d. As these effects respect sin they are declared to be expi- 
ation. — Heb. ii. 17; 1 John ii. 2, and iv. 10; Lev. xvi. 6-16. 



ITS NECESSITY. 411 

3d. As they respect the sinner himself they are declared to 
be redemption, that is, deliverance by ransom. — 1 Cor. vii. 23; 
Bev. v. 9; Gal. iii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19; 1 Tim. ii. 6; Is. li. 11, 
and lxii. 12. 

Christ's work is set forth in the same sentences as (a) an 
expiatory offering, (6) a ransom price, (c) a satisfaction to the 
law. Thus we are redeemed with the 'precious blood of Christ as 
of a lamb without blemish and without spot." Christ "gave his 
life a ransom for many." He " redeemed us from the curse of the 
law being made a curse for us." God u hath made him, ivho knew 
no sin, to be a sin-offering for us that ice might be made the right- 
eousness of God in him." Thus Christ is not said to be a sacri- 
fice and a ransom and a bearer of the curse of the law, but that 
he is that particular species of sacrifice which is a ransom — 
that his redemption is of that nature which is effected by his 
bearing the curse of the law in our stead, and that he redeems 
us by offering himself as a bleeding sacrifice to God. 

13. In what sense and on what grounds was the satisfaction ren- 
dered by Christ necessary? and how does the true answer to this 
question confirm the orthodox doctrine as to its nature? 

Since the salvation of men is a matter of sovereign grace, 
there could have been no necessity on the part of God for the 
provision of means to secure it, but on condition of God's deter- 
mining to save sinners, then in what sense was the satisfaction 
rendered by Christ necessary ? 

1st. The advocates of the Socinian or Moral Influence The- 
ory say that it was necessary only contingently and relatively, 
as the best means conceivable of proving the love of God and 
of subduing the opposition of sinners. 

2d. The advocates of the Governmental Atonement Theory 
hold that it was only relatively necessary as the best sin deter- 
ring example of God's determination to punish sin. 

3d. Some Supralapsarians, as Dr. Twisse, prolocutor of the 
Westminster Assembly, in order to exalt the sovereignty of 
God, held that it was only hypotheticaUy necessary, i. e., because 
God had sovereignly determined to forgive sin on no other 
condition. 

4th. The true view is that it was absolutely necessary as the 
only means possible of satisfying the justice of God in view of 
the pardon of sin. The grounds of an absolute necessity on 
the part of God, can, of course, only be found in the immuta- 
ble righteousness of his nature, lying behind and determining 
his will. 

That it is absolutely necessary is proved — (1.) If salvation 
could have been secured otherwise Christ would be dead in 



412 THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, ETC. 

vain. — Gal. ii. 21; iii. 21. (2.) God has declared that his gift 
of Christ is the amazing measure of his love for his people. If 
so, of course, he could have had no alternative, otherwise his 
love would not be the cause of the sacrifice. — Rom. v. 8 ; John 
iii. 16; iv. 9. (3.) Paul says it was necessary as a vindication 
of God's righteousness in view of the forgiveness of sins that 
were past. — Rom. iii. 25, 26. 

It is plain that if the necessity for the satisfaction was abso- 
lute, it must have had its ground in the nature of God. If so, 
it must have been in its essence a satisfaction of the justice or 
essential righteousness of that nature. But a satisfaction of 
outraged justice is penal suffering. 

14. Prove that Christ's satisfaction includes his "active" as well 
as his "passive " obedience. 

See above, Ques. 1, § 8. Christ as the second Adam takes 
up the covenant obligations of his people as these were left by 
the fall of the first Adam. The sanctions of that covenant 
were — (1.) "The man that doeth these things shall live by 
them." — Lev. xviii. 5, comp., and Rom. x. 5, and Gal. iii. 12, and 
Matt. xix. 17. (2.) The penalty of death. If Christ should 
only suffer the penalty of death, and not render the federal 
obedience required of Adam, it would necessarily follow, either 
(1) God would alter the conditions of law and give "eternal 
life" in the absence of the condition demanded; or, (2) we must 
continue forever destitute of it; or, (3) we must start where 
Adam did before his apostasy, and work out the conditions of 
the covenant of works in our own persons. This last would 
have been impossible, and therefore Christ by his obedience 
fulfilled them for us. 

This is proven — 1st. The Scriptures explicitly declare that 
he not only suffered the penalty but also meritoriously secured 
for us "eternal life, the "adoption of sons," and an "eternal 
inheritance." — Gal. iii. 13, 14, and iv. 4, 5; Eph. i. 3-13, and 
v. 25-27; Rom. viii. 15-17. 

2d. It is expressly said that he saves us by his obedience as 
well as by his suffering. — Rom. v. 18, 19. 

15. What is the Church doctrine as to the Perfection of Christ's 
Satisfaction ? 

I. As to its intrinsic justice-satisfying value it has been held — 
1st. By Duns Scotus (fl308), who referred the necessity of the 
Atonement to the will and not to the nature, that "every 
created oblation avails for just as much as God pleases to 
accept it." He graciously pleases to accept the sufferings of 
the human nature of Christ as sufficient, on the principle of 



ITS PERFECTION. 413 

accepti latio, " the optional taking of something for nothing, or 
of a part for the whole." 

2d. Grotius (fl645) in his great work, "De Satisfactione" etc., 
held that as the law was a product of the divine will, God had 
the inalienable prerogative of relaxing it (relaxatio), and that 
he did graciously relax it in accepting in the sufferings of 
Christ something different and less than the demands of the 
law, an aliucl pro quo, not a quid pro quo. 

3d. Limborch and Curcellseus (fl712 and 11659)— " Apol. 
Theo.," iii. 21, 6, and "Institutio Eel. Christ," vol. v., chap. 
xix., § 5 — held that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the 
law, but saves us as a sacrifice, which was not a payment of a 
debt, but a condition graciously estimated as sufficient by God, 
upon which he graciously remitted the penalty. 

4th. The Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed Churches have 
always held that the satisfaction of Christ was that of a divine 
Person, and hence (1) w r as superogatory, not due from himself, 
and free to be credited to others, (2) was of infinite value. 
From the time of Thomas Aquinas the Catholic Church has 
held that it is of superabundant value. Hence they satisfy the 
claims of the law in strict rigor of justice. 

II. As to its intention and effect — 1st. The Reformed Churches 
all agree in opposition to the Romanists, Arminians, and advo- 
cates of an indefinite atonement, that the satisfaction of Christ 
is perfect in the sense of not only making the salvation of 
those for whom it was offered possible, but of meritoriously 
securing its own application to them and their certain and 
complete salvation. 

2d. The Romanists hold that through the instrumentality of 
baptism the merits of Christ (1) cancel the guilt of all sins orig- 
inal and actual preceding baptism, and (2) transmute the pen- 
alty of all post-baptismal sins from eternal death to temporal 
pains. Nevertheless persons guilty of post-baptismal sins must 
expiate them by penances or works of charity in this world, or 
in the next by the pains of purgatory. — "Counc. Trident," 
Sess. 14, ch. viii., and Sess. 6, can. 29 and 30. 

3. Arminians hold that the satisfaction of Christ makes the 
salvation of all men possible, and secures for them sufficient 
grace, but that its full effect is suspended on the condition 
of their free choice. 

The truth of the Reformed doctrine is proved (1) from the 
fact that the Scriptures refer the removal of condemnation 
solely to the death of Christ, and represent all sufferings of 
believers as disciplinary. — Rom. viii. 1-34 and Heb. xii. 5-11. 
(2.) They declare that the blood of Christ "cleanses from all 
sin," and that we are "complete in him" who "by one sacrifice" 



414 THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, ETC. 

perfects us.— CoL ii. 10; Heb. x. 12-14; 1 John. i. 7. (3.) Sal- 
vation is conditioned only upon trust in Christ's work, and this 
very trust (faith) is itself given to us as a result of Christ's 
merits. — Eph. ii. 7-10. (4.) We have above proved (Ques. 14) 
that the satisfaction of Christ meritoriously secures actual and 
complete salvation for its beneficiaries, and not merely the pos- 
sibility of salvation upon conditions. See also below, Ques. 21. 

16. State and answer tJie objections ivJiich have been urged 
against the truth of the orthodox doctrine. 

1st. It is objected by Socinians and others that while it is 
an imperative duty and Christian virtue in man to forgive 
offences freely, that our doctrine ascribes the vice of vindictive- 
ness to God. 

We answer. — (1.) That ive forgive injuries and have nothing 
to do with the punishment of sins, while God punishes sin, and 
is incapable of suffering injury. (2.) We have proved above, 
Ch. VI 1 1., Q. 53-58, that all virtue can not be resolved into 
benevolence, and that justice is an essential attribute of God, 
and that sin is intrinsic ill-desert. 

2d. Socinus and others maintained that if sin is punished it 
can not be forgiven, and that if it is forgiven it can not be 
punished, and hence our doctrine excludes the exercise of free 
grace on the part of God in man's salvation. 

We ansaver. — (1.) Free grace is shown in the sovereign 
admission and acceptance by God of Christ's substitution. 
(2.) In the sovereign imputation of his merits to the individual 
sinner. (3.) That the infinite freeness of the love of God and 
the self-sacrificing grace of Christ is a thousand times more 
conspicuous in view of the facts that men were righteously con- 
demned, and that justice inexorably demanded satisfaction in 
the self-humiliation of our Substitute, than it could have been 
in any merely sovereign relaxation of law, or by any simple 
forgiveness upon repentance. 

3d. That Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, because 
that included essentially (a) remorse, (b) eternal death. 

We answer that the penalty of the law is essentially simple 
divine displeasure involving the withdrawal of the life-giving 
communion of the Holy Ghost. This in the case of every crea- 
ture (a) leads to spiritual death, (&) hence is naturally ever- 
lasting. Christ suffered this displeasure and desertion, Matt, 
xxvii. 4fi, but being a divine person spiritual death was impos- 
sible. He suffered precisely that kind and degree and duration 
of pain which divine wisdom, interpreting divine justice, re- 
quired in a divine person suffering vicariously the penalty of 
human sin, for the same reason the temporal suffering of one 



OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 415 

divine Person, is a full legal equivalent for the ill-desert of all 
mankind. 

4th. The objection urged by Piscator (Prof, at Herborn 
1584-1625) and others against the recognition of the active 
obedience of Christ as an element of his satisfaction. (1.) That 
the law made obedience and penal suffering alternatives. If 
the precept is obeyed the penalty should not be inflicted. 
(2.) That Christ, as a man, needed his active righteousness for 
himself, as the essential qualification of his personal character. 

We answer. — (1.) As shown above, Ques. 2 and 14. Christ 
stood as our Representative in our federal and not in our natural 
relation to law. His active and his passive obedience have 
different purposes, the former merits the positive rewards con- 
ditioned on obedience, the latter merits the negative blessing 
of remission of penalty. (2.) Christ, although a man, was a 
divine person, and therefore never personally subject to the 
Adamic covenant of works. He was essentially righteous, but 
he was made under the law only as our representative, and his 
obedience under the voluntarily assumed conditions of Ms earthly 
life was purely vicarious. 

5th. It is objected by Arminians and others that the doc- 
trine that Christ satisfies in our behalf the preceptive demands 
of the law by his active obedience, as well as the penal demands 
by his passive obedience, leads to Antinomianism. 

This is answered above, under Ques. 3. 

6th. It is objected by Socinus (1539-1604) and by all the 
adversaries of the orthodox doctrine, that the demands of justice 
for penal satisfaction are essentially personal. The demand of 
outraged justice is specifically for the punishment of the person 
sinning. How then can the demands of the divine nature be 
satisfied by pains inflicted upon a person arbitrarily substituted 
in the place of the criminal by the divine wiU? How can the 
sufferings of an innocent man take the place in the eye of 
justice of those of the guilty man. 

Answer. — The substitution of Christ in the stead of elect 
sinners was not arbitrary. He made satisfaction for them as 
the truly responsible Head of a community, constituting one 
moral person or corporate body. This responsible union with 
his people was constituted (a) by his own voluntary assump- 
tion of their legal responsibilities, (b) by the recognition of his 
sponsorship by God, the source of all law in the universe, (c) by 
his assumption of our nature. This, at least, is the testimony 
of revelation, if it can not be explained, it can not be disproved. 



416 THE ATONEMENT : ITS NATURE, ETC. 

The Design of the Atonement. 

17. State first negatively, and then positively, the true doctrine 
as to the design of the Father and the Son in providing satisfaction. 

I. Negatively — 1st. There is no debate among Christians 
as to the sufficiency of that satisfaction to accomplish the salva- 
tion of all men, however vast the number. This is absolutely 
limitless. 2d. Nor as to its applicability to the case of any and 
every possible human sinner who will ever exist. The relations 
of all to the demands of the law are identical. What would 
save one would save another. 3d. Nor to the bona fide char- 
acter of the offer which God has made to "whomsoever wills" 
in the gospel. It is applicable to every one, it will infallibly 
be applied to every believer. 4th. Nor as to its actual applica- 
tion. Arminians agree with Calvinists that of adults only those 
who believe are saved, while Calvinists agree with Arminians 
that all dying in infancy are redeemed and saved. 5th. Nor is 
there any debate as to the universal reference of some of the 
benefits purchased by Christ. Calvinists believe that the entire 
dispensation of forbearance under which the human family rest 
since the fall, including for the unjust as well as the just tem- 
poral mercies and means of grace, is part of the purchase of 
Christ's blood. They admit also that Christ did in such a sense 
die for all men, that he thereby removed all legal obstacles from 
the salvation of any and every man, and that his satisfaction 
may be applied to one man as well as to another if God so wills it. 

II. But positively the question is what was the design of the 
Father and Son in the vicarious death of Christ. Did they 
purpose to make the salvation of the elect certain, or merely 
to make the salvation of all men possible? Did his satisfaction 
have reference indifferently as much to one man as to another? 
Did the satisfaction purchase and secure its own application, 
and all the means thereof, to all for whom it was specifically 
rendered? Has the impetration and the application of this 
atonement the same range of objects ? Was it, in the order of 
the divine purpose, a means to accomplish the purpose of elec- 
tion, or is the election of individuals a means to carry into 
effect the satisfaction of Christ otherwise inoperative ? 

Our Confession answers — 

Ch. viii., § 5. — " The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacri- 
fice of himself, . . . purchased not only reconciliation, but an ever- 
lasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the 
Father hath given unto him. " — Chapter iii. , \ 6. ' 'As God hath appointed 
the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose 
of his will, foreordained ail the means thereunto. Wherefore they that 
are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed in Christ. . . . Nei- 
ther are any other redeemed by Christ .... but the elect only. " 



ITS DESIGN. 417 

Ch. viii., | 8. — "To all those for whom Christ hath purchased re- 
demption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the 
same."— "Articles of Synod of Dort," Ch. II, $ 1, 2, 8. 

The design of Christ in dying was to effect what he actually 
does effect in the result. 1st. Incidentally to remove the legal 
impediments out of the way of all men, and render the salva- 
tion of every hearer of the gospel objectively possible, so that 
each one has a right to appropriate it at will, to impetrate tem- 
poral blessings for all, and the means of grace for all to whom 
they are providentially supplied. But, 2d, Specifically his de- 
sign was to impetrate the actual salvation of his own people, 
in all the means, conditions, and stages of it, and render it in- 
fallibly certain. This last, from the nature of the case, must 
have been his real motive. After the manner of the Augustin- 
ian Schoolmen Calvin, on 1 John ii. 2, says, " Christ died suf- 
ficiently for all, but efficiently only for the elect." — So Arch- 
bishop Ussher, Numbers 22 and 23 of Letters published by his 
Chaplain, Richard Parr, D.D. 

18. State the Arminian doctrine on this subject 

That the design of Christ was to render a sacrificial obla- 
tion in behalf of all men indiscriminately, by which "sufficient 
grace" is meritoriously secured for each, and their sins ren- 
dered remissible upon the terms of the Evangelical Covenant ; 
i. e., upon condition of faith. — Watson's "Theo. Institutes," 
Pt. II., Ch. xxv. 

19. What was the doctrine of the "Marrow Men' in Scotland? 

The "Marrow of Modern Divinity" was published in Eng- 
land, 1646, and republished in Scotland by James Hog of Car- 
nock, 1726. The "Marrow Men" were Hog, Thomas Boston, 
and Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, and their followers in the 
Secession Church. They were perfectly orthodox with respect 
to the reference of the atonement to the elect. Their peculiar- 
ity was that they emphasized the general reference of the atone- 
ment to all men. They said Christ did not die for all, but he 
is dead for all, i. e., available. " God made a deed of gift and 
grant of Christ unto all men." They distinguished between 
his "giving love," which was universal, and his "electing love," 
which was special ("Marrow of Mod. Divinity"). Dr. John 
Brown said before the Synod of the United Secession Church, 
1845, " In the sense of the Universalist, that Christ died so as 
to secure salvation, I hold that he died only for the elect. In 
the sense of the Arminian, that Christ died so as to purchase 
easier terms of salvation, and common grace to enable men to 
comply with those terms, I hold that he died for no man. In 
27 



418 THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, ETC. 

the sense of the great body of Calvinists, that Christ died to 
remove legal obstacles in the way of human salvation by mak- 
ing perfect satisfaction for sin, I hold that he died for all men " 
("Hist, of Atonement Controversy in Secess. Church," by Rev. 
And. Robertson). 

20. State the doctrine of Amyraldus of tlve French School of 
Saumur, and of Baxter in England. 

This scheme of Hypothetical or Conditional Universalism 
holds that God gave his Son to die in order to provide redemp- 
tion for all. men indiscriminately, suspending its actual enjoy- 
ment upon their free appropriation of it. At the same time 
he sovereignly wills to give the effectual grace which deter- 
mines that free self-appropriation only to the elect. 

The ordinary Calvinistic doctrine logically makes the de- 
cree to provide redemption the means to carry into effect the 
decree of election. The French and Baxterian view makes the 
decree of election the means of carrying into effect so far forth 
the general purpose of redemption (See "Universal Redemp- 
tion of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ," by Richard Baxter. 
Answered by John Owen in his "Death of Christ," etc.). These 
"Novelties" were explained away before the French Synod, 
1637, and virtually condemned. 

21. Exhibit the Biblical evidence upon which the Calvinistic 
doctrine as to the " Design " of the Atonement rests. 

1st. It is proved by the fact that this doctrine alone is con- 
sistent with the Scriptural doctrine that God has from eternity 
sovereignly elected certain persons to eternal life, and to all 
the means thereof. It is evident that the rendering of satis- 
faction specially for the elect is a rational means for carrying 
the decree of election into execution. But, on the other hand, 
the election of some to faith and repentance is no rational pro- 
vision for executing the purpose to redeem all men. R. Wat- 
son ("Institutes," Vol. II., p. 411) says that the view of Baxter, 
etc., "is the most inconsistent theory to which the attempts to 
modify Calvinism have given rise." It is plain that if God pur- 
posed that the elect should certainly be saved, and others left 
to the just consequences of their sins, Christ could not have de- 
signed the benefits of his death indifferently for all men. 

2d. Its design is shown from the very nature of the atone- 
ment as above proved. (1.) Christ expiated our sins as our sub- 
stitute in the strict sense. But a substitute represents definite 
persons, and his service, when accepted, actually discharges the 
obligation of those for whom it was rendered. (2.) Christ being 
our substitute under the "covenant of works" actually and per- 



CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE PROVED. 419 

fectly satisfied all the demands of the covenant. In that case 
the terms of the covenant itself provide that those for whom 
it is satisfied must enjoy the reward. It is not the possibility 
of life, but life itself that is promised. 

3d. The Scriptures declare everywhere that the design and 
legal effect of Christ's work is not to render salvation possible 
but actually to save, to reconcile God and not to render him 
only reconcilable. — Matt, xviii. 11; Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. v. 21; 
Gal. i. 4; iii. 13; Eph. i. 7, and ii. 16. 

4th. The Scriptures everywhere teach that Christ purchased 
faith, repentance, and the Holy Spirit's influences by his death 
and obedience. Hence he must have purchased them for those 
for whom he suffered and obeyed, and they can not, therefore, 
be the conditions upon which the enjoyment of the benefits of 
his death are suspended. "We are blessed with all spiritual 
blessings in heavenly things in Christ." — Eph. i. 3, 4. The 
Holy Ghost is "shed on us through Jesus Christ our Saviour." 
Titus iii. 5, 6; Gal. iii. 13, 14; Phil. i. 29; Titus ii. 14; Eph. v. 
25-27; 1 Cor. i. 30. 

5th. Christ died in execution of the terms of an eternal 
covenant between the Father and himself. This is certain — 
(1.) Because three intelligent eternal Persons must have always 
had a mutual plan comprehending all their works, prescribing 
their several parts therein. (2.) The Scriptures often refer to 
this covenant. — Ps. lxxxix. 3, 4; Is. xlii. 6, 7, and liii. 10, 12. 
(3.) Christ made constant reference to it while executing it. 
Luke xxii. 29; John vi. 38, and x. 18.. (4.) Christ claims its 
reward. — John xvii. 4-9. (5.) And speaks of those who had 
been previously given him by his Father. — John x. 15-26. 
Then he must have died specially for those "whom the Father 
had given him." 

6th. The motive for his self-sacrifice is always declared to 
be the highest form of personal love. — John xv. 13 ; Rom. v. 8, 
and viii. 32; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. iii. 18, 19; 1 John iii. 16; iv. 9, 10. 

7th. The doctrine that Christ died specifically for the elect 
is everywhere stated in Scripture. — John x. 11, 15; Actsxx. 28; 
Rom. viii. 32-35 ; Eph. v. 25-27. 

22. If Christ died only for his own people, on what ground does 
the general offer of the gospel rest ? 

"The Lord Jesus, in order to secure the salvation of his 
people, and with a specific view to that end, fulfilled the con- 
dition of the law or covenant under which they and all man- 
kind were placed. These conditions were — (1) perfect obedi- 
ence; (2) satisfaction to divine justice. Christ's righteousness, 
therefore, consists of his obedience and death. That righteous- 



420 THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, ETC. 

ness is precisely what the law demands of every sinner in or- 
der to justification before God. It is, therefore, in its nature 
adapted to all sinners who were under that law. Its nature 
is not altered by the fact that it was wrought out for a portion 
only of such sinners, or that it is secured to them by the cov- 
enant between the Father and the Son. What is necessary for 
the salvation of one man is necessary for the salvation of an- 
other and of all. It is also of infinite value, being the right- 
eousness of the eternal Son of God, and therefore sufficient for 
all."— Hodge's "Essays," pp. 181, 182. 

A bona fide offer of the gospel, therefore, is to be made to 
all men — 1st. Because the satisfaction rendered to the law is 
sufficient for all men. 2d. Because it is exactly adapted to the 
redemption of all. 3d. Because God designs that whosoever 
exercises faith in Christ shall be saved by him. Thus the 
atonement makes the salvation of every man to whom it is 
offered objectively possible. The design of Christ's death being 
to secure the salvation of his own people, incidentally to the 
accomplishment of that end, it comprehends the offer of that 
salvation freely and honestly to all men on the condition of 
their faith. No man is lost for the want of an atonement, or 
because there is any other barrier in the way of his salvation 
than his own most free and wicked will. 

23. How can the condemnation of men for the rejection of Christ 
be reconciled with the doctrine that Christ died for the elect only? 

A salvation all-sufficient and exactly adapted to his neces- 
sities is honestly offered to every man to whom the gospel 
comes; and in every case it is his, if he believes; and in no 
case does any thing prevent his believing other than his own 
evil disposition. Evidently he is in no way concerned with 
the design of God in providing that salvation beyond the as- 
surance that God intends to give it to him if he believes. If 
a man is responsible for a bad heart, and the exercises thereof, 
he must be above all worthy of condemnation for rejecting such 
a Saviour. 

24. On ivhat principles are those texts to be explained tvhich 
speak of Chrisfs bearing the sins of the world, and of his dying 
for all ? 

These are such passages as Heb. ii. 9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22 ; 1 John 
ii. 2; 1 Tim. ii. 6; John i. 29; iii. 16, 17; vi. 51. These terms, 
"world" and "all," are unquestionably used in very various 
degrees of latitude in the Scriptures. In many passages that 
latitude is evidently limited by the context, e. g., 1 Cor. xv. 22; 
Eom. v. 18; viii. 32; John xii. 32; Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 20; 2 Cor. 



VARIOUS VIEWS HELD IN THE CHURCH. 421 

v. 14, 15. In others the word "world" is opposed to the Jewish 
nation as a people of exclusive privileges. — Kom. xi. 12, 15; 
1 John ii. 2. It is evident that statements as to the design of 
Christ's death, involving such general terms, must be defined 
by the more definite ones above exhibited. Sometimes this 
general form of statement is used to give prominence to the 
fact that Christ, being a single victim, by one sacrifice atoned 
for so many. — Compare Matt. xx. 28, with 1 Tim. ii. 6, and 
Heb. ix. 28. And although Christ did not die with the design 
of saving all, yet he did suffer the penalty of that law under 
which all were placed, and he does offer the righteousness thus 
wrought out to all. 

25. How are toe to understand those passages tvliich speak of 
the possibility of those perishing for ivhom Christ died ? 

Such passages are hypothetical, and truly indicate the na- 
ture and tendency of the action against which they warn us, 
and are the means which God uses under the administration 
of his Spirit to fulfil his purposes. God always deals with men 
by addressing motives to their understandings and wills, thus 
fulfilling his own design through their agency. In the case 
of Paul's shipwreck, it was certain that none should perish, 
and yet all would perish except they abode in the ship. — iVcts 
xxvii. 24-31. On the same principle must be explained all 
such passages as Heb. x. 26-30; 1 Cor. viii. 11, etc. 



History of the Various Views held in the Church. 

26. State the general character of tlve, Soteriology of the Early 
Fathers. 

1st. From the very first the representative Christian Fathers 
taught in a crude, unscientific manner that Christ suffered as a 
substitute for his people, to expiate sin and to propitiate God. 
They freely applied to Christ's work the sacrificial language 
of the Scriptures. Outram, Dis. 1, ch. 17. — "As it regards the 
work of Christ as the Redeemer of mankind, we find already 
in the language used by the Church Fathers on this point, in 
the period under consideration, all the elements that lay at the 
basis of the doctrine as it afterwards came to be defined by 
the Church." — Neander's "Ch. Hist.," Vol. I., p. 640, see testi- 
monies below. 2d. Together with this view there was com- 
bined during the whole earlier age until the time of Anselm 
a view especially emphasized by Origen (185-254) and Irenasus 
(f200), to the effect that Christ was offered by God as a ransom 
for his people to Satan, who held them by the power of con- 



422 THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, ETC. 

quest. This view was founded on such passages as Col. ii. 15, 
and Heb. ii. 14. 

27. State generally the four theories under one or other of ivhich 
all views ever entertained as to the nature of the reconciliation effected 
by Christ may be grouped. 

1st. The Mystical, which, although it has assumed various 
forms, may be generally stated thus : The reconciliation effected 
by Christ was brought about by the mysterious union of God 
and man accomplished by the incarnation, rather than by his 
sacrificial death. This view was entertained by some of the 
Platonizing Fathers, by the disciples of Scotus Erigena during 
the Middle Ages, by Osiander and Schivenkfeld at the Refor- 
mation, and by the school of Schleiermacher among modern 
German theologians. 

2d. The Moral Influence Theory first distinctively elaborated 
by Abelard (|1142) and held by the Socinians, and such Trin- 
itarians as Maurice, Young, Jowett, Bushnell, etc. The points 
involved are — (1.) There is no such principle as vindicatory 
justice in God. (2.) Benevolence is the single ultimate prin- 
ciple determining God in his provisions for human redemption. 
(3.) The sole object of the life and death of Christ is to produce 
a moral effect upon the individual sinner, subduing his obdurate 
aversion to God and his sullen distrust of his willingness to for- 
give. Thus reconciling man to God instead of God to man. 
(4.) The Socinians held in addition that Christ's death was the 
necessary precondition of his resurrection, by which he brought 
immortality to light. 

3d. The Governmental Theory, which, presupposing all the 
positive truth contained in the "Moral Influence Theory," 
maintains — (1.) That justice in God is not vindicatory, but 
is to be referred to a general Governmental rectitude, based 
upon a benevolent regard for the highest ultimate and most 
general well-being of the subjects of his moral government. 
(2.) Law is a product of the divine will and therefore relax- 
able. (3.) God's sovereign prerogative includes the right of 
pardon. (4.) But the governmental rectitude above explained, 
in view of the fact that indiscriminate pardon would encourage 
the violation of law, determines God to condition the pardon of 
human sinners upon an imposing example of suffering in a victim 
so related to mankind and to himself, as effectually to demon- 
strate his determination that sin should not be indulged with 
impunity. Therefore — (a.) Christ's sufferings were not punish- 
ment, but an example of a determination to punish hereafter. 
(b.) They were designed not to satisfy divine justice, but to 
impress the public mind of the moral universe with a sin- 



CLASSICAL AND CONFESSIONAL AUTHORITIES. 423 

deterring motive. This theory was first elaborated by Hugo 
Grotius (fl645) in his great work, "Defensio Fidei Catholicce de 
Satisfactione Christi" in which he abandoned the faith he as- 
sumed to defend. It has never been embodied in the creed of 
any historical church, but has been held by several schools of 
theologians, e. g., the Supernaturalists of the last age in Ger- 
many, as Staudlin, Flatt, and Storr, and in America by Jonathan 
Edwards, Jr., Smalley, Maxey, D wight, Emmons, and Park. 

Remarks. — While this theory embraces much precious truth, 
it fails in the essential point on which the integrity of the whole 
depends. For — (1.) Only a real bona fide punishment can be 
an example of a punishment, or a proof' of God's determination 
to punish sin. (2.) It ignores the essential justice of God, and 
(3) the fact that sin is an essential evil in itself, and (4) the 
fact that Christ suffered as the Head in whom all his members 
were United. 

4th. The Satisfaction Theory consistently embraces the posi- 
tive elements of the " Moral Influence " and " Governmental " 
theories above stated. It was first analyzed and set forth in a 
scientific form by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury (|1093- 
fll09), in his epoch-making book, "Cur Deus Homo" and it 
has formed the basis of the Soteriological doctrines of all the 
creeds and classical theological literature of all the historical 
churches since his time. It has been sufficiently stated and 
proved in the former part of this chapter. 

Literature. — Hase, "IAbri Symbolici Eccle. Evangelicce " ; Nie- 
meyer, "Collectio Confessionum" etc.; Streitwolf, "Libri Symbolici 
Eccle. Catholicce." "De Sacrificiis, Gulielmo Outramo Auctore" ; 
Neander's and Shaff's "Church Histories"; Archb. Magee, "The 
Atonement"; Shedd's "History of Christian Doctrine"; Oicens 
"Works" vol 10, "Bedemption"; Ritschl, "Crit. Hist, of the Christ. 
Doctrine of Reconciliation" ; Candlish, " The Atonement" ; Watson's 
"Institutes" 



Classical and Confessional Authorities. 

Origen, "Homil. ad Levit.," 1, speaking of Christ says, "He laid Ms 
hand upon the head of the calf, i. e. , he laid the sins of mankind upon 
his own head, for he is the head of the body, the Church." 

Athanasius (|373), contra Arianos, 1, 45-f60. — "The death of the 
incarnate Logos is a ransom for the sins of men and a death of death." 
. . . "Laden with guilt the world was condemned bylaw, but the 
Logos assumed the condemnation, and suffering in the flesh gave salva- 
tion to all." 

Gregory the Great (|604), "Moralia in Jobum" 17, 46. — "Guilt can be 
extinguished only by penal offering to justice. . . Hence a sinless man 
must be offered. . . . Hence the Son of God must be born of a 
virgin, and become man for us. He assumed our nature without our 



424 THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, ETC. 

corruption {culpa). He made himself a sacrifice for us, and set forth for 
sinners his own body, a victim without sin, and able both to die by virtue 
of its humanity, and to cleanse the guilty, upon grounds of justice. " 

Bernard of Clairvaux (|1153), "Tract, contr. Err. Abcelardi," cap. 
6, 15. — "If One has died for all, then all are dead (2 Cor. v. 14), that is, 
the satisfaction of one is imputed to all, as that One bore the sins of all, 
neither is it found that he who offended is one, and he that satisfied 
another, for the head and the body is one Christ. Therefore the Head 
made satisfaction for his members. " 

Wy cliff e (1324-1384), "Be Incarn. el Mori. Christi."— " And since 
according to the third supposition, it is necessary that satisfaction 
should be made for sin, so it was necessary that that same race of man 
should make the satisfaction as great, as it had, in the first parent, made 
the offence, which no man could do, unless he were at the same time 
God and man." 

The Valenses of Piedmont, in 1542, presented a Confession to Fran- 
cis I. of France through Cardinal Sadolet. In it they say, ' ' This Con- 
fession is that which we have received from our ancestors, even from 
hand to hand, according as their predecessors in all times, and in every 
age, have taught and delivered. . . We believe and confess that the 
gratuitous remission of sins proceeds from the mercy and mere goodness 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who died once for our sins, the just for the 
unjust; who bore our sins in his own body on the cross; who is our 
advocate with God, himself the price of our reconciliation; who alone 
has made satisfaction for believers, to whom sins are not imputed as they 
are to the unbelieving and the reprobates. " 

John Weasel (1419-1489), "Be Causis Incarnation? s." — "Truly himself 
God, himself priest, himself victim, he made satisfaction for himself, of 
himself, to himself. " ' 'Exempla Scaloe Meditalionis, " Ex. 1, p. 544. — ' ' Our 
loving Father willed thee his own loving Son to be a surety, sponsor, 
guaranty with respect to sufficient doing and sufficient suffering, upon just 
pledge, for my universal failure and miscarriage. " 

' ' Orthodox Confession or the Catholic and Apostolic Eastekn 
Church, composed by Petrus Mogilas, Metropolitan of Kiew, 1642, and 
sanctioned by the Synod of Jerusalem 1672, p. 85. " The death of Christ 
was of a very different kind from that of all other men in these respects; 
first, because of the weight of our sins; secondly, because he wholly ful- 
filled the priesthood even to the cross; he offered himself to God and the 
Father for the ransoming of the human race. Therefore even to the 
cross he fulfilled the mediation between God and men." 

Eoman Doctrine. — "Council of Trent," Sess. 6, chap. 7. — "Christ, 
who when we were enemies, on account of the great love wherewith he 
loved us, merited justification by his most holy passion on the wood of 
the cross, and made satisfaction to God the Father for us." "Catechism 
of Council of Trent,'" Pt. II., ch. 5, Q. 60.—" The first and most excellent 
satisfaction is that by which whatever is due by us to God, on account 
of our sins, has been paid abundantly, although he should deal with us 
according to the strictest rigor of his justice. This is said to be that 
satisfaction, which we say has appeased God and rendered him propitious 
to us, and for it we are indebted to Christ the Lord alone, who having 
paid the price of our sins on the cross, most fully satisfied God." 

Lutheran Confessions, Hase's "Collection," p. 684, "Formida Con- 
cordice." — "That righteousness which before God is of mere grace im- 
puted to faith, or to the believer, is the obedience, suffering, and resur- 
rection of Christ, by which he for our sakes satisfied the law, and expi- 



CLASSICAL AND CONFESSIONAL AUTHORITIES. 425 

ated our sins. For since Christ was not only man, but God and man in 
one undivided person, so he was not subject to the law, nor obnoxious 
to suffering and death on his own account, because he was Lord of the 
law. On which account his obedience (not merely in respect that he 
obeyed the Father in his sufferings and death, but also that he for our 
sakes willingly made himself subject to the law and fulfilled it by his obe- 
dience) is imputed to us, so that God on account of that whole obedience 
(which Christ by his acting and by his suffering, in his life and in his 
death, for our sakes rendered to his Father who is in heaven) remits our 
sins, reputes us as good and just, and gives us eternal salvation." 

Reformed Doctrine. — " Thirty-nine Articles" Arts. 11 and 31. — 
"The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propi- 
tiation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world both original 
and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone." 
Homily 3d. " On Salvation.'" — " God sent his only Son our Saviour Christ 
into this world, to fulfil the law for us, and by shedding his most pre- 
cious blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction to his Father for our 
sins." "Heidelberg Cat.," Ques. 12-18 and 40. "West Conf. Faith," 
ch. viii., | 5, and ch. xi., \ 3. "Form. Cons. Helvetica," cans. 13-15. 
Cocceius ("De Fsed. et Testam. Dei," cap. 5, 92). "Thus that greatest 
mystery (the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son) is re- 
vealed in what manner we are justified and saved by God, in what man- 
ner God may both be the one who judges, and who acts as surety, and 
who thus is himself judged, who absolves and who intercedes, who sends 
and is sent. That is in what manner God himself satisfied himself by 
his own blood." 

Remonstrant Doctrine. — Limborch, "Apol. Tfies." 3, 22, 5. — "It may 
here be questioned in what way the sacrifice of one man is able to suffice 
and in fact did suffice for expiating the innumerable sins of so many 
myriads of men. Answer. It sufficed on two accounts. First with re- 
spect to the divine will, which required nothing more for the liberation 
of the human race, but was satisfied with this one sacrifice alone. Sec- 
ondly with respect to the dignity of the person, Jesus Christ . . . 21, 6. 
The satisfaction of Christ is so-called inasmuch as it releases from all 
the penalties due our sins, and by hearing and exhausting them, satisfies 
divine justice. But this sentiment has no foundation in Scripture. The 
death of Christ is called a sacrifice for sin; but sacrifices are not pay- 
ments of debts, nor are they full satisfactions for sins; but a gratuitous 
remission is granted when they are offered. " 

Remonstrantia, etc., five articles prepared by the Dutch advocates of 
universal redemption (1610), Art 2. — "Therefore Jesus Christ, the Sa- 
viour of the world, died for all and every man, so that he impetrated for 
all through his death reconciliation and remission of sins, nevertheless 
on this condition, that no one should have actual fruition of that recon- 
ciliation, unless he is a believer, and that also according to the gospel." 

Socinian Doctrine. — " Rac. Cat." Sec. 5, ch. viii. — "What was the 
purpose of the divine will that Christ should suffer for our sins ? ' Ans. 
First, that a most certain right to, and consequently a sure hope of, the 
remission of their sins, and of eternal life, might by this means be cre- 
ted for all sinners (Rom. viii. 32 and v. 8-10). Secondly, that all sinners 
might be incited and drawn to Christ, seeking salvation in and by him 
alone who died for them. Thirdly, that God might in this manner tes- 
tify his boundless love to the human race, and might wholly reconcile 
them to himself (John iii. 16)." 



CHAPTER XXVI. 

THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST. 

1. In what sense is Christ to continue a priest forever ? 

This is asserted by Paul, Heb. vii. 3, 24, to contrast the 
priesthood of Christ ivith that of Aaron, which consisted of a 
succession of mortal men in their generations. His priesthood 
is perpetual, because, 1st, by one sacrifice for sin he hath for- 
ever perfected them that are sanctified; 2d, he ever liveth to 
make intercession for us ; 3d, his person and work as mediator 
will continue for all eternity the ground of our acceptance, and 
the medium of our communion with the Father. 

2. Did he intercede for his people on earth ? 

He did exercise this function of his priesthood on earth, 
Luke xxiii. 34; John xvii. 20; Heb. v. 7; the principal scene 
of its exercise, however, is his estate of exaltation in heaven. 

3. What is the view which the Scriptures present of the inter- 
cession of Christ? 

1st. He appears in the presence of God for us, as the priestly 
advocate of his people, and presents his sacrifice. — Heb. ix. 12, 
24; Kev. v. 6. 

2d. He acts as our advocate with the Father, and on the 
basis of his own perfect work under the terms of the covenant 
of grace, claims as his own right, though as infinitely free grace 
to us ward, the fulfillment of all the promises of his covenant. 
1 John ii. 1; John xvii. 24; xiv. 16; Acts ii. 33; Heb. vii. 25. 

3d. Because of his community of nature with his people, 
and his personal experience of the same sorrows and tempta- 
tions which now afflict them, he sympathizes with them, and 
watches and succors them in all their varying circumstances, 
and adapts his ceaseless intercessions to the entire current of 
their experiences. — Heb. ii. 17, 18; iv. 15, 16; Matt, xxviii. 20; 
xviii. 20. 



AN ESSENTIAL PART OF HIS PRIESTLY WORK. 427 

4th. He presents, and through his merits gains acceptance 
for the persons and services of his people. — 1 Pet. ii. 5; Eph. 
i. 6; Rev. viii. 3, 4; Heb. iv. 14-16. 

4. For whom does he intercede? 

Not for the world, but for his own people of every fold, and 
of all times. — John x. 16; xvii. 9, 20. 

5. Shoiv that his intercession is an essential part of his priestly 
work. 

It is absolutely essential, Heb. vii. 25, because it is necessary 
for him as mediator not merely to open up a way of possible 
salvation, but actually to accomplish the salvation of each of 
those given to him by the Father, and to furnish each with 
an u introduction" {TtpodayGoyrj) to the Father. — John xvii. 12; 
Eph. ii. 18; iii. 12. The communion of his people with the 
Father will ever be sustained through him as mediatorial 
priest. — Ps. ex. 4; Rev. vii. 17. 

6. What relation does the ivorlc of the Holy Ghost sustain to the 
intercession of Christ? 

Christ is a royal priest. — Zech. vi. 13. From the same 
throne, as king, he dispenses his Spirit to all the objects of 
his care, while as priest he intercedes for them. The Spirit 
acts for him, taking only of his things. They both act with 
one consent, Christ as principal, the Spirit as his agent. Christ 
intercedes for us, without us, as our advocate in heaven, accord- 
ing to the provisions of the eternal covenant. The Holy Ghost 
works upon our minds and hearts, enlightening and quicken- 
ing, and thus determining our desires "according to the will 
of God," as our advocate within us. The work of the one is 
complementary to that of the other, and together they form a 
complete whole. — Rom. viii. 26, 27; John xiv. 26. 



CHAPTER XXVII. 

MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 

1. How does the sovereignty of Christ as Mediator differ from 
Ms sovereignty as God? 

His sovereignty as God is essential to his nature, underived, 
absolute, eternal, and unchangeable. 

His sovereignty as mediatorial King is derived, given to 
him by his Father as the reward of his obedience and suffer- 
ing; it is special, having respect to the salvation of his own 
people and the administration of the provisions of the covenant 
of grace; and it attaches, not to his divine nature as such, but 
to his person as God-man, occupying the office of Mediator. 

His kingdom is a verv prominent subject in Scripture. — 
Dan. ii. 44; Matt. xiii. 1-58, and xx. 20-29; Luke xiii. 23-30, 
and xvii. 20 and 21; Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Pet. iii. 22; Eph. i. 10, 21, 
and 22. 

2. What is the extent of Christ's mediatorial kingdom, and what 
are the different aspects which it presents ? 

Christ's mediatorial authority embraces the universe. — Matt, 
xxviii. 18; Phil. ii. 9-11; Eph. 1 17-23. It presents two great 
aspects. 1st. In its general administration as embracing the 
universe as a whole. 2d. In its special administration as em- 
bracing the church. 

It has been distinguished as — (1.) His kingdom of poiver, 
which embraces the entire universe in his providential and 
judicial administration. The end of this is the subjection of 
his enemies (Heb. x. 12, 13; 1 Cor. xv. 25), the vindication of 
divine righteousness (John v. 22-27 ; ix. 39), and the perfecting 
of his church. (2.) His kingdom of grace which is spiritual 
alike as to its subjects, laws, modes of administration, and in- 
strumentalities. (3.) His kingdom of glory is the consumma- 
tion of his providential and gracious administration, and will 
continue forever. 



PUBLICLY ASSUMED WHEN HE ASCENDED. 429 

3. What are the objects of his mediatorial authority over the 
universe, and how is it administered ? 

Its object is to accomplish the salvation of his church in 
the execution of all the provisions of the covenant of grace, 
which devolves upon him as Mediator. — Eph. i. 23. As the 
universe constitutes one physical and moral system, it was 
necessary that his headship as Mediator should extend to the 
whole, in order to cause all things to work together for good 
to his people, Rom. viii. 28; to establish a kingdom for them, 
Luke xxii. 29 ; John xiv. 2 ; to reduce to subjection all his ene- 
mies, 1 Cor. xv. 25; Heb. x. 13; and in order that all should 
worship him. — Heb. i. 6; Rev. v. 9-13. His general mediatorial 
government of the universe is administered, 1st, providentially ; 
2d, judicially.— John v. 22, 27; ix. 39; 2 Cor. v. 10. 

Eph. i. 10, and Col. i. 20, seem to indicate that Christ's 
mediatorial headship sustains very comprehensive relations to 
the moral universe in general, which otherwise are entirely 
unrevealed. 

4. When did Christ formally assume his mediatorial kingdom? 

1st. The advocates of the premillennial advent, and personal 
reign of Christ on earth, admit that Christ now reigns at his 
Father's right hand, on his Father's throne, and in his Father's 
right, but maintain that he will not enter properly upon his 
own kingdom and sit upon his own throne as Mediator, until 
his second advent, when he will assume the literal throne of 
David, and constitute the kingdom from Jerusalem its capital. 

2d. The truth as held by all branches of the historical 
church is, that while Christ has been virtually mediatorial 
King as well as Prophet and Priest from the fall of Adam, 
yet his public and formal assumption of his throne and in- 
auguration of his spiritual kingdom dates from his ascension 
and session at the right hand of his Father. This is proved 
because the Old Testament predictions of his kingdom (Ps. ii. 6; 
Jer. xxiii. 5; Is. ix. 6; Dan. ii. 44) are in the New Testament 
applied to the first advent. John the Baptist declared that 
the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Christ declared "the 
kingdom of God is come unto you," and likens it to the field 
with wheat and tares growing together, etc. — Matt. iv. 23; 
Acts ii. 29-36. 

5. What are the different titles applied in Scripture to this king- 
dom, and ivhat are the senses in which these titles of the kingdom are 
used ? 

It is called — (1.) The "kingdom of God," Luke iv. 43, be- 



430 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 

cause it is pre-eminently of divine origin, and the authority of 
God is with peculiar directness and fulness exercised in its 
administration. (2.) "The kingdom of Christ" and of "God's 
dear Son," Matt. xvi. 28 ; Col. i. 13, because he is in person the 
immediate sovereign. (3.) "The kingdom of heaven," Matt, 
xi. 12, because its origin and characteristics are from heaven, 
and its consummation is to be in heaven. 

These phrases are sometimes used to express — (1.) Christ's 
mediatorial authority, or its administration, and the power and 
and glory which belong to it, as when we ascribe to him the 
" kingdom and the power and the glory," or affirm that of 
"his kingdom there shall be no end." (2.) The blessings and 
advantages of all kinds, inward and outward, which are char- 
acteristic of this administration, as when we say the "king- 
dom is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." 
Thus Napoleon III. said, "The Empire is peace." (3.) The 
subjects of the kingdom collectively, as when we are said to 
" enter the kingdom," and speak of " the keys of the kingdom," 
which admit to or exclude from this community. In this latter 
sense the phrase " kingdom of God," or " of heaven," is synon- 
ymous with the word "Church." 

The word fiadileia, in this connection, occurs one hundred 
and thirty-seven times in the entire New Testament, and one 
hundred and ten times in the gospels, fifty-three times in Mat- 
thew alone, the gospel most nearly related to the Old Testa- 
ment, and only twenty times in the epistles, while EHxXrj6ia, 
when referring to the Church of Christ, occurs but once in the 
gospels and eighty-eight in the epistles and revelations. 

6. What is the nature of Christ's 'kingly administration of the 
affairs of his own people, i. e.> of his kingdom as distinct from the 
universe ? 

1st. It is providential. He administers his providential gov- 
ernment over the universe with the design of accomplishing 
thereby the support, defence, enrichment, and glorification of 
his people. 2d. It is accomplished by the dispensation of his 
Spirit effectually calling, sanctif}^ing, comforting, preserving, 
raising, and glorifying his people. — John xv. 26; Acts ii. 33-36. 
3d. It is accomplished by his prescribing the form, and order, 
and functions of his church, the officers who are to act as the 
organs of those functions, and the laws which they are to ad- 
minister. — Matt, xxviii. 18, 19, 20; Eph. iv. 8, 11. 4th. By des- 
ignating the persons who are successively to assume those 
offices, by means of a spiritual call, expressed in the witness 
of the Spirit, the leadings of providence, and the call of the 



HIS KINGDOM IS SPIRITUAL. 431 

brethren.— Acts i. 23, 24; vi. 5; xiii. 2, 3; xx. 28; 1 Tim. i. 12; 
iv. 14. 

Under this administration this kingdom presents two as- 
pects, 1st, as militant, Eph. vi. 11-16; 2d, as glorified. — Kev. 
iii. 21. And accordingly Christ presents himself as fulfilling, 
in his administration of the affairs of his kingdom, the functions 
of a great Captain, Rev. xix. 11, 16, and of a sovereign Prince 
reigning from a throne. — Rev. xxi. 5, 22, 23. 

The throne upon which he sits and from which he reigns is 
presented in three different aspects, corresponding to the dif- 
ferent relations he sustains to his people and the world; as a 
throne of grace, Heb. iv. 16; a throne of judgment, Rev. xx. 
11-15; and a throne of glory. — Compare Rev. iv. 2-5 with 
Rev. v. 6. 

7. In what sense is Christ's kingdom spiritual. ? 

1st. The King is a spiritual and not an earthly sovereign. 
Matt. xx. 28; John xviii. 36. 2d. His throne is at the right 
hand of God. — Acts ii. 33. 3d. His sceptre is spiritual. — Is. liii. 
1 ; Ps. ex. 2. 4th. The citizens of his kingdom are spiritual 
men. — Phil. iii. 20; Eph. ii. 19. 5th. The mode in which he ad- 
ministers his government is spiritual. — Zech. iv. 6, 7. 6th. His 
laws are spiritual. — John iv. 24. 7th. The blessings and the 
penalties of his kingdom are spiritual. — 1 Cor. v. 4-11; 2 Cor. 
x. 4; Eph. i. 3-8; 2 Tim. iv. 2; Tit. ii. 15. 

8. What is the extent of the powers which Christ has vested in 
his visible church ? 

In respect to the civil magistrate the church is absolutely 
independent. In subjection to the supreme authority of Christ 
her head the powers of the church are solely, 1st, declarative, 
i. e., to expound the Scriptures, which are the perfect rule of 
faith and practice, and thus to witness to and promulgate the 
truth in creeds and confessions, by the pulpit and the press. 
And, 2d, ministerial, i. e., to organize herself according to the 
pattern furnished in the Word, and then to administer, through 
the proper officers, the sacraments, and those laws and that 
discipline prescribed by the Master, and to make provision for 
the proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom to every crea- 
ture.— Is. viii. 20; Deut. iv. 2; Matt, xxviii. 18-20; Heb. xiii. 17; 
1 Pet. ii. 4. 

9. What are the conditions of admission into Christ's kingdom ? 

Simply practical recognition of the authority of the sover- 
eign. As the sovereign and the entire method of his admin- 
istration are spiritual, it is plain that his authority must be 



432 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 

understood and embraced practically, according to its spiritual 
nature. This is that spiritual faith which involves spiritual 
illumination. — John iii. 3, 5; i. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 3. 

10. What is the Romish doctrine of the relation of the ehurch to 
the state ? 

According to the strictly logical Romish doctrine, the state 
is only one phase of the church. The whole nation being in 
all its members a portion of the church universal, the civil or- 
ganization is comprehended within the church for special sub- 
ordinate ends, and is responsible to the church for the exercise 
of all the authority delegated to it. 

First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Council of the Vat- 
ican, 1870, Ch. iv., declares that the judgments of the Pope, 
pronounced ex cathedra, as pastor and doctor of all Christians, 
upon any question of faith or morals is infallible and irreforma- 
ble. This infallibility is personal, independent, separate, and 
absolute. This comprehends all matter of fact and doctrine 
revealed, and all such further matters of fact or truth unre- 
vealed yet involved in the defence of that which is revealed. 
In the third chapter the supreme authority of the infallible 
Pope is extended " to the supreme and full power of jurisdic- 
tion over the universal church, not only in things which belong 
to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the disci- 
pline and government thereof." 

In the "Papal Syllabus of Errors," 1864, sent to all the 
bishops by the authority of the Pope, the right of religious 
liberty is condemned, the right to enforce the decrees of the 
church by force is asserted, and the marriage of those who re- 
fuse to accept the Romish Sacrament of matrimony declared 
void (see the affirmative propositions published by Von P. 
Clemens Schrader, with the approbation of the Pope). 

Pope Pius himself, in his reply to the Address from the 
Academia of the Catholic Religion (July 21, 1873), declares 
that the Pope possesses the right, which he properly uses, un- 
der favorable circumstances, "to pass judgment even in civil 
affairs, on the acts of princes and of nations." 

Archbishop Manning, in " Cgesarism and Ultramontanism," 
p. 35, says, " If, then, the civil power be not competent to de- 
cide the limits of the spiritual power, and if the spiritual power 
can define, with a divine certainty, its own limits, it is evi- 
dently supreme. Or in other words, the spiritual power knows 
with divine certainty the limits of its own jurisdiction ; and it 
knows therefore the limits and competence of the civil power." 
"Any power which is independent, and can alone fix the limits 



RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 433 

of its own jurisdiction, and can thereby fix the limits of all 
other jurisdiction, is ipso facto supreme." — See Hon. Wm. E. 
Gladstone, "The Vatican Decrees in their bearing on Civil 
Allegiance," and his "Answer to Reproofs and Replies." 

11. What is the Erastian doctrine as to the relation of the church 
to the state ? 

This doctrine, named from Erastus, a physician resident in 
Heidelberg in the sixteenth century, is precisely contrary to 
that of the Romanists, i. e., it regards the church as only one 
phase of the state. The state, being a divine institution, de- 
signed to provide for all the wants of men, spiritual as well as 
temporal, is consequently charged with the duty of providing 
for the dissemination of pure doctrine, and for the proper ad- 
ministration of the sacraments, and of discipline. It is the duty 
of the state, therefore, to support the church, to appoint its 
officers, to define its laws, and to superintend its administration. 

12. WJiat is tlve common doctrine of the Reformed Church on 
this point ? 

That the church and the state are both divine institutions, 
having different objects, and in every respect independent of 
each other. The members and officers of the Church are, as 
men, members of the state, and ought to be good citizens ; and 
the members and officers of the state, if Christians, are mem- 
bers of the church, and as such subject to her laws. But nei- 
ther the officers nor the laws of either have any authority 
within the sphere of the other. 

13. What is the idea and design of the State ? 

Civil government is a divine institution, designed to protect 
men in the enjoyment of their civil rights. It has, therefore, 
derived from God authority to define those rights touching all 
questions of person and property, and to provide for their vin- 
dication, to regulate intercourse, and to provide all means nec- 
essary for its own preservation. 

14. What is the design of the visible Church ? 

It is a divine institution designed to secure instrument-ally 
the salvation of men. To that end it is specially designed — 

1st. To bring men to a knowledge of the truth. 

2d. To secure their obedience to the truth, and to exercise 
their graces by the public confession of Christ, the fellowship 
of the brethren, and the administration of the ordinances and 
discipline. 

28 



434 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 

3d. To constitute the visible witness and prophetic type of 
the church invisible and spiritual. 

15. What are the duties of the officers of the State with regard 
to the Church ? 

The state is a divine institution, and the officers thereof are 
God's ministers, Rom. xiii. 1-4, Christ the Mediator is, as a 
revealed fact, " Ruler among the Nations," King of kings, and 
Lord of lords, Rev. xix. 16; Matt, xxviii. 18; Phil. ii. 9-11; 
Eph. i. 17-23, and the Sacred Scriptures are an infallible rule 
of faith and practice to all men under all conditions. 

It follows therefore — 1st. That every nation should expli- 
citly acknowledge the Christ of God to be the Supreme Gov- 
ernor, and his revealed will the supreme fundamental law of 
the land, to the general principles of which all special legisla- 
tion should be conformed. 2d. That all civil officers should 
make the glory of God their end, and his revealed will their 
guide. 3d. That, while no distinction should be made between 
the various Christian denominations, and perfect liberty of 
conscience and worship be allowed to all men, nevertheless the 
Christian magistrate should seek to promote piety as well as 
civil order ("Conf. Faith," ch. 23, § 2). This they are to do, 
not by assuming ecclesiastical functions, nor by attempting to 
patronize or control the church, but by their personal example, 
by giving impartial protection to church property and facility 
to church work, by the enactment and enforcement of laws 
conceived in the true spirit of the Gospel, and especially in 
maintaining inviolate the Christian Sabbath, and Christian 
marriage, and in providing for Christian instruction in the 
public schools. 

16. What relation does the civil law in the United States sus- 
tain to Church polity, discipline, and property ? 

I. History. — 1st. In England the established Church is a 
corporation created and controlled by the State. 

2d. In most of the American Colonies, the State, at first, 
undertook the absolute control of ecclesiastical affairs, and 
limited rights of citizenship by religious tests. 

II. Present Facts. — 1st. The Constitution of the United 
States provides that " No religious test shall ever be required 
as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United 
States, and that Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there- 
of." The constitutions of the several states provide to the same 
effect. 



RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE U. S. 435 

2d. Christianity in a general sense is, as an historical fact, 
an essential element of the common law of England, and 
therefore that of the United States (except Louisiana, Texas, 
New Mexico, California, etc.), incorporated in our customs, 
principles, precedents, etc* 

3d. It is recognized by the civil law as the historical and 
actual religion of the vast majority of the citizens of the United 
States. The Christian faith and the institutions in which it 
finds expression, are, therefore, to be reverenced and protected 
by the civil law. 

4th. The civil law, therefore, recognizes the church, as 
having an historic character, and as being an important element 
of society. It recognizes and protects its right to exist and 
enjoy the possession of its legitimate privileges and powers. 
Thus the civil law recognizes and protects (1) the autonomy 
of the church as to (a) its general polity and (b) its discipline 
of persons. (2.) The rights of each church as an organized 
whole to its property. 

5th. The civil courts recognize as final the decisions of 
church courts as to (1) who are members of the church, and 
(2) who are the spiritual officers of the church. The civil court 
will not presume to go back of the decision of the church court 
in order to determine (1) whether it was rightly constituted 
(i. e., if the church court in question be recognized by the high- 
est authority in the church), or (2) whether subsequently to its 
constitution the church court has acted consistently with its 
own rules. 

Judge Rogers, of the Supreme Court of Penna., in the case 
of the German Reformed Church of Lebanon Co., Pa., said, 
"The decisions of ecclesiastical courts, like every other judicial 
tribunal, are final, as they are the best judges of what consti- 
tutes an offence against the word of God and the constitution 
of the church." 

The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of the 
Walnut Street Church, Louisville, Ky., 1872, decided — 

(1.) Where the subject matter of dispute is strictly and 
purely ecclesiastical in its character, a matter which concerns 
theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical govern- 
ment, or the conformity of the members of the church to the 
standard of morals required of them, and the ecclesiastical 
courts claim jurisdiction, the civil courts will not assume juris- 
diction — they will not even inquire into the right of the juris- 
diction of the ecclesiastical court. 

(2.) A spiritual court is the exclusive judge of its own ju- 

* Case of Updegraff v. The Commonwealth of Penna., 11 S. and K,. 400, 
before Supreme Court, Justices Duncan, Tilghman, and Gibson, 1824. 



436 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 

risdiction : its decision of that question is binding on the secular 
courts (see " Presbyterian Digest," Dr. Wm. E. Moore, p. 251). 

6th. The civil law recognizes the right of the church to 
discipline its members. Even the public declaration made pur- 
suant of the rules of order of a church from which a member 
has been excommunicated, because of his commission of an 
offence regarded as infamous by the law, is justified, and no 
action of slander can be maintained for such a publication. 

7th. The church proper, or " ecclesiastical society," is distin- 
guished from the incorporated "religious society" created to 
hold property for the use of the former. These incorporated 
religious societies are governed by their charters, and by the 
by-laws made in pursuance thereof; they hold property by 
means of trustees, and are virtually civil societies as much 
as any bank or railroad company. It is governed by the law 
precisely as other corporations are. It is subject to visitation. 
Intrusion into its offices may be remedied, and it will be re- 
strained from a maladministration, or a misappropriation of 
the property. Its articles of association, and by-laws under 
its charter, providing for meetings, elections, and conduct of 
temporal affairs, may be changed according to the terms pro- 
vided by the charter, but are binding while they exist. Sub- 
stantial conformity to them is essential to the valid transaction 
of business, and may be reviewed by the civil court. 

8th. When the ''Will" or "Deed of Gift" or "Terms of Sub- 
scription " of the original donors of the property, or the charter 
of the church, prescribes neither (1) any specific doctrine, nor 
(2) any particular form of church government, nor connection 
with any definite religious denomination, then the majority of 
the members of the church in question control the property, 
and in case of change of doctrines, or discipline, or of denomi- 
national relation, may carry the property with them. 

But whenever either the doctrine or the form of government 
or ecclesiastical connection is defined, either by the original 
donors or by the charter of the church, the civil courts will 
protect and enforce the trust. In such case, if any change is 
made by the majority in either of these essential points, the 
majority, however large, forfeits the property, and the minority, 
however small, will be maintained in possession. And the civil 
court will in all such cases receive and act on the decisions of 
the superior ecclesiastical courts as final (see Lectures by Hon. 
Wm. Strong, LL.D., Justice of Supreme Court of U. S., 1875). 

17. What is the relative jurisdictions of the "Boards of Trustees" 
and of the "Sessions" of our Presbyterian Churches, over the houses 
of worship pertaining to their respective Congregations ? 



HIS KINGDOM EVERLASTING. 437 

The "Session" is the only body of congregational officers 
known to our ecclesiastical constitution. The " Board of Trus- 
tees" is a creature of the civil courts for the purpose of holding 
the congregational property in trust. 

As to their respective jurisdictions the decisions of the courts 
and of the general assembly are in harmony with each other. 
The legal title to the property is vested in the trustees, and they 
have the custody of *it "for the uses and purposes for which 
they hold it in trust," namely, the worship of God, etc., accord- 
ing to the order of the church to which it appertains, including 
business meetings relating to the congregation. The session 
is charged with the supervision of the spiritual interests of the 
congregation, including the right to direct and control the use 
of the building for such purposes. In the Supreme Court of 
the United States, in the Louisville Walnut Street case, the 
following principles were enunciated: "1. By the act of the leg- 
islature creating the trustees of a church, a body corporate, 
and by the acknowledged rules of the Presbyterian Church, 
the trustees are the mere nominal title-holders and custodians 
of the church property. 2. That in the use of the property for 
all religious services, or ecclesiastical purposes, the trustees are 
under the control of the church session." In a difference be- 
tween trustees and the session of a church in Philadelphia 
respecting an organist, the question was carried to the Supreme 
Court of that state, who decided that the worship of the con- 
gregation was under the charge of the session, and that the 
service of song was a part of the worship, and hence the 
appointment of the organist was in the session. The civil 
courts are very firm in maintaining the rights and privileges 
of religious worship, and of churches, and in requiring the ob- 
servance of the trust. 

18. What are the duties of the Church ivith regard to the State ? 

1st. The church owes obedience to the state in the exercise 
of her lawful authority over the public property of the church. 
2d. She is bound to use all the lawful means in her possession 
for carrying the gospel to all the members of the state. Beyond 
this the church owes no duty to the state whatever. 

19. In ivhat sense is Christ to return his kingdom to his Father, 
and in what sense will his mediatorial headship continue forever ? 

The sum of what is revealed to us upon this subject appears 
to be, that after the complete glorification of his people, and 
the destruction of his enemies, Christ will demit his mediatorial 
authority over the universe, which he has administered as God- 



438 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 

man, in order that the Godhead absolute may be immediately 
all in all to the creature. — 1 Cor. xv. 24^28. But his mediato- 
rial headship over his own people, including the offices of 
prophet, priest, and king, shall continue forever. This is cer- 
tain — 1st. Because he is a priest forever, and of his kingdom 
there is no end. — Ps. ex. 4; Dan. vii. 14; Luke i. 33. 2d. The 
personal union between his divine and human nature is to con- 
tinue forever. 3d. As Mediator he is the head of the church, 
which is his fulness, and the consummation of the marriage 
of the Lamb is the beginning of heaven. — Rev. xix. 7; xxi. 2, 9. 
4th. As "a Lamb that had been slain," he is represented in 
heaven on the throne as ever more the temple and the light 
of the city, and as feeding his people, and leading them to 
fountains of living waters. — Rev. v. 6; vii. 17; xxi. 22, 23. 



Christ executed his Office of Mediator both in his Estate of 
Humiliation and Exaltation. 

20. Wherein does Christ's humiliation consist ? 

See "Larger Catechism," Questions 46-50; "Shorter Cate- 
chism," Question 27. 

21. In what sense was Christ made under the law, and how was 
that subjection an act of humiliation ? 

In his incarnation Christ was born precisely into the law 
place of his people, and sustained to the law precisely that rela- 
tion which they did. He was born under the law, then, 1st, as 
a rule of duty; 2d, as a covenant of life; 3d, as a broken cove- 
nant, Avhose curse was already incurred. His voluntary assump- 
tion of such a position was pre-eminently an act of humiliation : 
1st. His assumption of a human nature was voluntary. 2d. After 
his incarnation his person remained divine, and the claims of 
law terminating upon persons, and not upon natures, his sub- 
mission to those claims was purely gratuitous. 3d. This con- 
descension is immeasurably heightened by the fact that he 
accepted the curse of the law as of a covenant of life already 
broken — Gal. hi. 10-13; iv. 4, 5. 

22. In what sense did Christ undergo the curse of the laiv, and 
how was that possible for God's ivell-beloved Son ? 

In his own person, absolutely considered, Christ is often 
declared by the Father to be his "beloved Son, with whom he 
was well pleased," Matt. hi. 17; 2 Pet. i. 17; and he always 
did that which pleased God. — John viii. 29. But in his office 



THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST. 439 

as mediator he had assumed our place, and undertaken to bear 
the guilt of our sin. The wrath of God, then, which Christ 
bore, was the infinite displeasure of God against our sins, 
which displeasure terminated upon Christ's person vicariously, 
because of the iniquity of us all which was laid upon him. — 
Matt. xxvi. 38; xxvii. 46; Luke xxii. 44. 

23. What are the different interpretations of the phrase in the 
apostles creed, "he descended into hell" or Hades? 

The phrase, uardfioc6i^ eU adov, desensus ad inferos, was one 
of the last incorporated into the ancient Creed. It is supposed 
to be derived from Ps. xvi. 10; Acts ii. 27; 1 Pet. iv. 18-20. 

1st. The Catholic Church, on the basis of ancient tradition, 
interpret this phrase to mean that Christ after his death went 
in his entire person as God-man, to the Limbus Patrwn, that 
department of Hades in which the Old Testament saints re- 
mained waiting for the revelation and application to them of 
his salvation. Here he preached the gospel, and brought them 
out to heaven. See below the "Cat. Council of Trent." 

2d. The Lutherans hold that Christ's death was the last 
stage in his humiliation, and his descent to Hades the first 
stage of his exaltation, since he went to reveal and consum- 
mate his victory over Satan and the powers of darkness, and 
to pronounce their sentence of condemnation. 

3d. The Church of England affirms in the 3d Article — "As 
Christ died for us and was buried, so also it is to be believed 
that he went down into hell." In the first book of Edward VI. 
it is stated more fully — "The body of Christ lay in the sepul- 
chre until his resurrection, but his ghost departing from him, 
was with the ghosts which were in prison, or in hell, and did 
preach to the same, as the place of St. Peter doth testify." 
Bishop Pearson, in his "Exposition of the Creed" teaches that 
Christ really went to the place of the damned to consummate 
the expiation of human sin, and to destroy the power of hell 
over his redeemed. 

4th. Calvin (" Institutes," Bk. 2, ch. xvi., § 10) interprets 
this phrase metaphorically, as expressing the penal sufferings 
of Christ on the cross. Our " Conf. Faith " affixes to the Creed 
the explanatory clause, "continued in the state of the dead," 
and the American Episcopal Church affixes the equivalent 
clause, "he went into the place of departed spirits." That is, 
Christ was a real man, consisting of soul and body, and his 
death was a real death, his soul leaving the body and going 
into the invisible world of spirits, where it continued a sep- 
arate conscious existence until his resurrection. 



440 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 

24. What is the true meaning of 1 Pet. iii 19-21 ? 

This passage is very obscure. The Romish interpretation is 
shown in the answer to the preceding question, i. e., that Christ 
went to the Limbus Patrum and preached the gospel to those 
imprisoned spirits that were awaiting his advent. 

The common Protestant interpretation is that Christ was 
put to death in the body, but quickened, or restored to life by 
the Spirit, by which Spirit, inspiring Noah as a preacher of 
righteousness, Christ many centuries previously had descended 
from heaven, and preached to the men of that generation, who 
in their sin and unbelief were the " spirits in prison." Only 
eight persons believed and were saved; therefore, Christian 
professors and teachers ought not to faint because of the 
unbelief of mankind now. 

Another interpretation, suggested by Archbishop Leighton 
in a note, as his last opinion, and expounded at large by the 
late Dr. John Brown, of Edinburgh, is, that Christ dying in the 
body as a vicarious sacrifice is quickened in the spirit, i. e., 
spiritually quickened, manifested as a complete Saviour in a 
higher degree than was possible before, as a grain of wheat 
dying he began to bear much fruit; and thus quickened, 
he now, through the inspiration of his Spirit, preached to 
" spirits in prison," i. e., prisoners of sin and Satan, just as he 
had before done, though with less power, through Noah and 
all the prophets, when the spirits were disobedient ; under the 
ministry of Noah only eight souls being saved ; but since Christ 
was quickened in spirit, i. e., manifested as a complete Saviour, 
multitudes believed. 

25. Wherein does Christ's exaltation consist ? 

" Shorter Cat," Question 28, " Larger Cat.," Questions 51-54. 

26. In ivhat sense was it possible for the co-equal Son of God to 
be exalted ? 

As the co-equal Son of God this was impossible, yet his per- 
son as God-man was capable of exaltation in several respects. 

1st. Through the union of the divine and human natures, 
the outward manifestations of the glory of his person had been 
veiled from the eyes of creatures. 2d. As Mediator he occupied 
officially a position inferior to the Father, condescending to oc- 
cupy the place of sinners. He had been inconceivably humbled, 
and, as a reward consequent upon his voluntary self-humilia- 
tion, the Father highly exalted him. — Phil. ii. 8, 9; Heb. xii. 2; 
Rev. v. 6. 3d. His human soul and body were inconceivably 
exalted.— Matt. xvii. 2; Rev. i. 12-16; xx. 11. 



THE EXALTATION OF CHRIST. 441 

27. What are tlie various sources of proof by which tJw resur- 
rection of Christ is established ? 

1st. The Old Testament predicted it. Compare Ps. xvi. 10, 
and Acts ii. 24-31. All the other predictions concerning the 
Messiah were fulfilled in Christ, therefore this. 

2d. Christ predicted it, and therefore, if he was a true 
prophet, he must have risen. — Matt. xx. 19 ; John x. 18. 

3d. The event, his extraordinary origin and character con- 
sidered, is not antecedently improbable. 

4th. The testimony of the eleven apostles. These men are 
proved by their writings to have been good, intelligent, and 
serious, and they each had every opportunity of ascertaining 
the fact, and they sealed their sincerity with their blood. — 
Acts i. 3. 

5th. The separate testimony of Paul, who, as one born out 
of due time, saw his risen Lord, and derived his revelation and 
commission from him in person. — 1 Cor. xv. 8 ; Gal. i. 12 ; Acts 
ix. 3-8. 

6th. He was seen by five hundred brethren at once, to whom 
Paul appeals. — Cor. xv. 6. 

7th. The change of the Sabbath, from the last to the first 
day of the week, is a monument of the concurrent testimony 
of the whole of the first generation of Christians, to the fact 
that they believed that Christ rose from the dead. 

8th. The miracles wrought by the apostles were God's seals 
to their testimony that he had raised Christ. — Heb ii. 4. 

9th. The accompanying witness of the Holy Ghost, honor- 
ing the apostles' doctrine and ministry not merely by mirac- 
ulous gifts, but by his sanctifying, elevating, and consoling 
power. —Acts v. 32. Dr. Hodge. 

28. By whose power did Christ rise from the dead ? 

The Scriptures ascribe his resurrection — 

1st. To himself. — John ii. 19; x. 17. 

2d. To the Father.— Acts xiii. 33; Rom. x. 9; Eph. i. 20. 

This is reconciled upon the principle that all acts of divine 
power, terminating upon objects external to the Godhead, may 
be attributed to either of the divine persons, or to the Godhead 
absolutely. — John v. 17-19. 

29. On what ground does the apostle declare that our faith is 
vain if Christ be not risen (1 Cor. xv. 14)? 

1st. If Christ be risen indeed, then he is the true Messiah, 
and all the prophecies of both dispensations have in that fact 



442 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 

a pledge of their fulfilment. If he has not risen, then are they 
all false. 

2d. The resurrection proved him to be the Son of God, Eom. 
i. 4, for (1) he rose by his own power, (2) it authenticated all 
his claims with respect to himself. 

3d. In the resurrection of Christ the Father publicly declared 
his approbation and acceptance of Christ's work as surety of his 
people. — Rom. iv. 25. 

4th. If Christ has risen, Ave have an advocate with the Fa- 
ther.— Rom. viii. 34; Heb. 9, 11, 12, 24. 

5th. If Christ be raised, we have assurance of eternal life; 
if he lives, we shall live also. — John xiv. 19; 1 Pet. i. 3-5. 

6th. Owing to the union between Christ and his members, 
which is both federal and spiritual, his resurrection secures 
ours, (1) because, as we died in Adam, so we must live in 
Christ, 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22 ; (2) because of his Spirit, that dwell- 
eth in us. — Rom. viii. 11; 1 Cor. vi. 15; 1 Thess. iv. 14. 

7th. Christ's resurrection illustrates and determines the na- 
ture of our resurrection as well as secures it. — 1 Cor. xv. 49; 
Phil. hi. 21 ; 1 John hi. 2. Dr. Hodge. 

30. When, at ivhat place, and in whose presence did Christ 
ascend ? 

He ascended forty days after his resurrection, from a portion 
of the Mount of Olives, near to the village of Bethany, in the 
presence of the eleven apostles, and possibly of other disciples, 
while he was in the act of blessing them, and while they beheld 
him, and were looking steadfastly. Luke says, moreover, that 
there were two glorified men present, who are conjectured by 
Professor J. A. Alexander to have been Moses and Elijah. He 
was attended also with angels celebrating his victory over sin, 
and his exaltation to his mediatorial throne. — Luke xxiv. 50, 51 ; 
Mark xvi. 19; Acts i. 9-11; Eph. iv. 8; Col. ii. 13-15; Ps. xxiv. 
7-10; lxviii. 18. 

31. What are the different opinions as to the nature of Christ's 
ascension ? 

Those who, as the Lutherans, believe that Christ's body is 
omnipresent to his church, of course, maintain that his ascen- 
sion consisted not in any local change, but in the withdrawal 
of his former sensible intercourse with his disciples. 

It is certain, however, that his human soul and body did 
actually pass up from earth to the abode of the blessed, and 
that his entire person, as the God-man, was gloriously exalted. 
He ascended as Mediator, triumphing over his enemies, and 



AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS OF DOCTRINE. 443 

giving gifts to his friends, Eph. iv. 8-12 ; to complete his me- 
diatorial work, John xiv. 2, 3 ; as the Forerunner of his people, 
Heb. vi. 20; and to fill the universe with the manifestations of 
his glory and power. — Eph. iv. 10. 

32. What is included in Christ's sitting at the right hand of the 
Father ? 

See Ps. ex. 1; Mark xvi. 19; Eom. viii. 34; Eph. i. 20, 22; 
Col. iii. 1; Heb. i. 3, 4; x. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 22. 

This language is evidently figurative, yet it very expres- 
sively sets forth the supreme glorification of Christ in heaven. 
It presents him as the God-man, and in his office as Mediator 
exalted to supreme and universal glory, felicity, and power over 
all principalities and powers, and every name that is named. — 
Heb. ii. 9; Ps. xvi. 11; Matt. xxvi. 64; Dan. vii. 13, 14; Phil, 
ii. 9, 11; John v. 22; Rev. v. 6. Thus publicly assuming his 
throne as mediatorial Priest and King over the universe lor 
the benefit of his church. 

Seated upon that throne he, during the present dispensation, 
as Mediator, effectually applies to his people, through his Spirit, 
that salvation which he had previously achieved for them in his 
estate of humiliation. 



AUTHOEITATIVE STATEMENTS OF DOCTRINES. 

Boman Doctrine. — "Cat. Cone. Trent," Pt. 1, ch. 6. — "Therefore we 
profess that, immediately Christ was dead, his soul descended into hell. 
. . But in these words we at the same time confess, that the same per- 
son of Christ was at the same time, in hell and in the sepulchre, for . . 
although his soul departed from his body, his divinity was never sep- 
arated either from soul or body. . . The word "hell" signifies those 
hidden abodes in which are detained souls that have not attained heavenly 
bliss. . . These abodes were not all of the same kind. . . A third 
sort of receptacle is that in which were received the souls of the saints 
who died before the coming of Christ our Lord; and where, without any 
sense of pain, sustained by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed 
a tranquil abode. The souls, then, of these pious men, who in the bosom 
of Abraham were expecting the Saviour; Christ the Lord liberated, de- 
scending into hell. . . . He descended not to suffer aught but to 
liberate from the miserable weariness of that captivity the holy and the 
just, and to impart to them the fruit of his passion. " 

Lutheran Doctrine. "Formula Concordioe" (Hase), p. 788. — "There- 
fore we believe simply, that the entire person, God and man, after burial 
descended to the lower regions, overcame Satan, overthrew the infernal 
powers, and took away from the devil all force and authority. " Pp. 767, 
768. — "By virtue of this personal union and communion, he produced all 
his miracles, and manifested his divine majesty, according to a most free 
will, when and in what manner seemed good to him, not only after his 
resurrection and ascension to heaven, but even in his state of humilia- 
tion. Indeed he had this majesty immediately upon his conception, 



444 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 

even in the womb of his mother; but as the apostle speaks (Phil. ii. 8), 
he emptied himself ; and as Dr. Luther teaches, he had this majesty 
secretly in the state of his humiliation, nor did he use it always, but as 
often as seemed to him good. But now, after he has, not in a common 
manner like any other holy person, ascended into the heavens; but, as 
the Apostle testifies (Eph. iv. 10), has ascended above all heavens, and 
truly fills all things, and everywhere present, not only as God, but also 
as man, rules and reigns from sea to sea, and even to the ends of the 
earth. . . . These things, however, were not done in an earthly 
manner, but, as Dr. Luther was accustomed to say, in the way and man- 
ner of the right hand of God {pro modo ei ratione dexter w Dei), which is 
not any fixed and limited place in heaven, but signifies nothing else than 
the omnipotent power of God which fills heaven and earth — into posses- 
sion of which Christ really and truly comes as to his humanity without 
any confusion or equalizing of his natures (divine and human), either as 
to their essences or essential attributes." 



CHAPTER XXVIII. 



The Application of Redemption accomplished by Christ as Mediatorial King through 
the Personal Agency of the Holy Ghost. 

EFFECTUAL CALLING. 

1. What is the Neiv Testament usage of the ivords nakiiv (to 
call), nXrj6iz (calling), and nX^roi (the called) ? 

KcckEiv is used in the sense, 1st, of calling with the voice, 
John x. 3; Mark i. 20; 2d, of calling forth, to summon author- 
itatively, Acts iv. 18; xxiv. 2; 3d, of inviting, Matt. xxii. 3; 
ix. 13; 1 Tim. vi. 12. Many are called, but few chosen. 
4th. Of the effectual call of the Spirit.— Rom. viii. 28-30; 1 Pet. 
ii. 9; v. 10. 5th. Of an appointment to office. — Heb. v. 4. 
6th. In the sense of naming, Matt. i. 21; K\rj6iz occurs eleven 
times in the New Testament, in each instance it signifies the 
effectual call of the Holy Spirit, with the exception of 1 Cor. 
vii. 20, where it is used as synonymous with business or trade. 
See Rom. xi. 29; 1 Cor. i. 26, etc.— Robinson's "Lex." 

kXtjtos occurs ten times in the New Testament. It is used 
to signify — 1st. Those appointed to any office. — Rom. i. 1. 
2d. Those who receive the external call of the word. — Matt, 
xx. 16. 3d. The effectually called. — Rom. i. 7; viii. 28; 1 Cor. 
i. 2, 24 ; Jude i. ; Rev. xvii. 14. 

The very word enxA?/dia (church) designating the company 
of the faithful, the heirs of all the promises, signifies, etymolo- 
gically, the company called forth, the body constituted by " the 
calling." 

2. What is included in the external call ? 

1st. A declaration of the plan of salvation. 2d. A declara- 
tion of duty on the part of the sinner to repent and believe. 
3d. A declaration of the motives which ought to influence the 
sinner's mind, such as fear or hope, remorse or gratitude. 



446 EFFECTUAL CALLING. 

4th. A promise of acceptance in the case of all those who 
comply with the conditions. — Dr. Hodge. 

3. How can it be proved that the external call to salvation is 
made only through the word of God ? 

The law of God, as impressed upon the moral constitution 
of man, is natural, and inseparable from man as a moral respon- 
sible agent. — Rom. i. 19, 20; ii. 14, 15. But the gospel is no 
part of that natural law. It is of grace, not of nature, and it 
can be made known to us only by a special and supernatural 
revelation. 

This is further evident, 1st, because the Scriptures declare 
that a knowledge of the word is essential to salvation, Rom. x. 
14-17; and, 2d, because they also declare that those who neg- 
lect the word, either written or preached, are guilty of the 
eminent sin of rejecting all possibility of salvation. — Matt. xi. 
21, 22; Heb. ii. 3. 

4. On what principle is this external call addressed equally to 
the non-elect as well as to the elect ? 

That it is addressed indiscriminately to both classes is 
proved — 1st. From the express declaration of Scripture. — Matt. 
xxii. 14. 2d. The command to preach the gospel to every crea- 
ture. — Mark xvi. 15. 3d. The promise to every one who ac- 
cepts it. — Rev. xxii. 17. 4th. The awful judgment pronounced 
upon those who reject it. — John iii. 19 ; xvi. 9. 

It is addressed to the non-elect equally with the elect, be- 
cause it is equally their duty and interest to accept the gospel, 
because the provisions of salvation are equally suited to their 
case, and abundantly sufficient for all, and because God intends 
that its benefits shall actually accrue to every one who accepts it. 

5. Hoiv can it be proved that tliere is an internal spiritual call 
distinct from an external one ? 

1st. From those passages which distinguish the Spirit's influ- 
ence from that of the word. — John vi. 45, 64, 65; 1 Thess. i. 5, 6. 
2d. Those passages which teach that the Spirit's influence is 
necessary to the reception of the truth. — Eph. i. 17. 3d. Those 
that refer all good in man to God. — Phil. ii. 13; Epb. ii. 8; 2 
Tim. ii. 25, e. g., faith and repentance. 4th. The Scripture dis- 
tinguishes between the two calls; of the subjects of the one it 
is said, "many are called and few are chosen," of the subjects 
of the other it is said, "whom he called, them he also justified." 
Of the one he says, " Because I have called, and ye have re- 
fused." — Prov. i. 24. Of the other he says, "Every man there- 



THE VARIOUS VIEWS STATED. 447 

fore who hath heard and hath learned of the Father cometh 
unto me." — John vi. 45. 5th. There is an absolute necessity 
for such an internal, spiritual call, man by nature is " blind " 
and "dead" in trespasses and sins. — 1 Cor. ii. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 4; 
Eph. ii. 1. 

6. What is the Pelagian view of the internal call ? 

Pelagians deny original sin, and maintain that right and 
wrong are qualities attaching only to executive acts of the 
will. They therefore assert — 1st. The full ability of the free- 
will of man as much to cease from sin at any time as to con- 
tinue in its practice. 2d. That the Holy Spirit produces no in- 
ward change in the heart of the subject, except as he is the 
author of the Scriptures, and as the Scriptures present moral 
truths and motives, which of their own nature exert a moral 
influence upon the soul. They deny " grace " altogether in the 
Scriptural sense. 

7. What is the Semipelagian view ? 

These maintain that grace is necessary to enable a man suc- 
cessfully to return unto God and live. Yet that from the very 
nature of the human will man must first of himself desire to be 
free from sin, and to choose God as his chief good, when he 
may expect God's aid in carrying his desires into effect. They 
deny prevenient grace, but admit co-operative grace. 

8. What is the Arminian view? 

The Arminians admit the doctrine of man's total depravity, 
and that in consequence thereof man is utterly unable to do 
any thing aright in the unaided exercise of his natural facul- 
ties. Nevertheless, as Christ died equally for every man, suffi- 
cient grace, enabling its subject to do all that is required of 
him, is granted to all. Which sufficient grace becomes efficient 
only when it is co-operated with and improved by the sinner. — 
"Apol. Conf. Remonstr.," p. 162, b.; Limborch, "Theo. Christ," 
4, 12, 8. 

9. What is the doctrine on this subject taught by the Symbols 
of the Lutheran Church ? 

They agree absolutely with the Reformed or Calvinists — 
1st. That all men are by nature spiritually dead, utterly unable 
either to commence to turn to God, or to co-operate with his 
grace to that end prior to regeneration. 2d. That the gracious 
operation of the Holy Spirit on the human soul is the sole 



448 EFFECTUAL CALLING. 

efficient cause which quickens the dead soul to life. Hence — 
3d. The foundation upon which the salvation of believers rests 
is the eternal, gracious election of God to salvation. They re- 
fuse however to take the next step, and acknowledge that the 
reason unbelievers are not quickened is due to the equally sov- 
ereign withholding of regenerating grace. They insist upon 
attributing it solely to the criminal resistance to the grace, of 
the initial stages of which all are the subjects. — ''Formula Con- 
cordise," Hase, pp. 579-583, 662-666, 817-821. 

A and B are alike sinners, A believes and B remains a rep- 
robate. The Pelagian says, because A willed to believe and B 
to reject. The Semipelagian says, because A commenced to 
strive and was helped, and B made no effort. The Arminian 
says, because A co-operated with common grace, and B did not. 
The Lutheran says, both were utterly unable to co-operate, but 
B persistently resisted grace, and A ultimately yielded. The 
Calvinist says, because A was regenerated by the new creative 
power of God's Spirit, and B was not. 

10. What is the Synergistic view of this point ? 

At the call of Maurice, the new elector of Saxony, the 
divines of Wittemburg and Leipsic assembled at Leipsic, a. d. 
1548, in conference, and on that occasion the Synergistic con- 
troversy arose. The term signifies co-operation. The Syner- 
gists were Lutheran theologians, who departed from their own 
system on this one subject, and adopted the position of the 
Arminians. Melanchthon taught that "there concur three 
causes of a good action, the word of God, the Holy Spirit, and 
the human will assenting, not resisting, the word of God." 
" Loci Communes," p. 90. 

11. What is tlve common doctrine of tlie Reformed Churches as 
to the internal call? 

That it is an exercise of the divine power upon the soul, 
immediate, spiritual, and supernatural, communicating a new 
spiritual life, and thus making a new mode of spiritual activity 
possible. That repentance, faith, trust, hope, love, etc., are 
purely and simply the sinner's own acts; but as such are pos- 
sible to him only in virtue of the change wrought in the moral 
condition of his faculties by the recreative power of God. — See 
"Conf. of Faith," Chap, x., Sections 1 and 2. 

Common grace preceding regeneration makes a superficial 
moral impression upon character and action but is generally 
resisted. The act of grace which regenerates, operating within 
the spontaneous energies of the soul and changing their char- 



"COMMON" AND "EFFICACIOUS" GRACE. 449 

acter, can neither be co-operated with nor resisted. But the 
instant the soul is regenerated it begins to co-operate with 
and sometimes, alas ! also to resist subsequent gracious influ- 
ences prevenient and co-operative. But upon the whole and 
in the end grace preserves, overcomes, and saves, regenera- 
tion is styled by the Reformed Theologians Conversio habitualis 
seu passiva, i. e., the change of character in effecting which the 
soul is the subject, and not the agent of action. Conversion 
they style Conversio actualis seu activa, i. e., the instantly con- 
sequent change of action in which the soul still prompted and 
aided by grace is the only agent. 

12. What diversity of opinion prevails among the Romanists 
upon this subject ? 

The disciples of Augustine in that church, of whom the 
Jansenists were the most prominent, are orthodox, but these 
have been almost universally overthrown, and supplanted by 
their enemies the Jesuits, who are Semipelagians. The Coun- 
cil of Trent attempted to satisfy both parties. — "Council of 
Trent," Sess. 6, Can. 3 and 4. The doctrines of Quesnel, who 
advocated the truth on this subject, were condemned in the 
Bull " Unigenitus," a. d. 1713. Bellarmin taught that the 
same grace is given to every man, which, by the event only, 
is proved practically congruous to the nature of one man, and 
therefore in his case efficacious, and incongruous to the nature 
of another, and therefore in his case ineffectual. 

13. What is meant by " common grace" and how may it be 
shoivn that the Spirit does operate upon the minds of those who are 
not reneioed in heart ? 

"Common grace" is the restraining and persuading influ- 
ences of the Holy Spirit acting only through the truth revealed 
in the gospel, or through the natural light of reason and of 
conscience, heightening the natural moral effect of such truth 
upon the understanding, conscience, and heart. It involves 
no change of heart, but simply an enhancement of the natural 
powers of the truth, a restraint of the evil passions, and an in- 
crease of the natural emotions in view of sin, duty, and self- 
interest. 

That God does so operate upon the hearts of the unregen- 
erate is proved, 1st, from Scripture, Gen. vi. 3; Acts vii. 51; 
Heb. x. 29; 2d, from universal experience and observation. 

14 How does common differ from efficacious grace? 

1st. As to its subjects. All men are more or less the sub- 
29 



450 EFFECTUAL CALLING. 

jects of the one; only the elect are subjects of the other. — Eom. 
viii. 30; xi. 7; 2 Thess. ii. 13. 

2d. As to its nature. Common grace is only mediate, 
through the truth, and it is merely moral, heightening the 
moral influence natural to the truth, and exciting only the 
natural powers of the soul, both rational and moral. But effi- 
cacious grace is immediate and supernatural, since it is wrought 
directly in the soul by the immediate energy of the Holy Ghost, 
and since it implants a new spiritual life, and a capacity for a 
new mode of exercising the natural faculties. 

3d. As to its effects. The effects of common grace are su- 
perficial and transient, modyifying the action, but not chang- 
ing the nature, and its influence is always more or less con- 
sciously resisted, as opposed to the prevailing dispositions of 
the soul. But efficacious grace, since it acts not upon but in 
the will itself, changing the governing desires, and giving a 
new direction to the active powers of the soul, is neither re- 
sistible nor irresistible, but most free, spontaneous, and yet 
most certainly effectual. 

15. How can it be proved that this efficacious grace is confined to 
the elect? 

1st. The Scriptures represent the elect as the called, and the 
called as the elect. — Rom. viii. 28, 30; Rev. xvii. 14. 2d. This 
effectual calling is said to be based upon the decree of election, 
2 Thes. ii. 13, 14 ; 2 Tim. i. 9, 10. 3d. Sanctification, justifica- 
tion, and all the temporal and eternal benefits of union with 
Christ are declared to be the effects of effectual calling. — 1 Cor. 
i. 2; Eph. ii. 5; Rom. viii. 30. 



16. Prove that it is given on account of Christ 



1st. All spiritual blessings are given on account of Christ. 
Eph. i. 3; Titus iii. 5, 6. 2d. The Scriptures specifically de- 
clare that we are called in Christ. — Rom. viii. 2 ; Eph. ii. 4-6 ; 
2 Tim. i. 9. 

17. What is meant by saying that this divine influence is im- 
mediate and supernatural? 

It is meant, 1st, to deny, (1) that it consists simply in 
the moral influence of the truth; (2) that it consists simnly 
in the moral influence of the Spirit, heightening the moral in- 
fluence of the truth as objectively presented ; (3) that it excites 
the mere natural powers of the soul. It is meant, 2d, to affirm, 
(1) that the Holy Spirit acts immediately upon the soul from 



GOD ACTS IMMEDIATELY OX THE SOUL. 451 

within ; (2) that the Holy Spirit, by an exercise of recreative 
power, implants a new moral nature or principle of action. 

18. What arguments go to show that there is an immediate 
influence of the Spirit on the soul, besides that which is exerted 
through the truth ? 

1st. The influence of the Spirit is distinguished from that of 
the word. — John vi 45, 64, 65; Rom. xv. 13; 1 Cor. ii. 12-15; 
1 Thess. i. 5, 6. 

2d. A divine influence is declared to be necessary to the 
reception of the truth. — Ps. cxix. 18; Acts xvi. 14; Eph. i. 17. 

3d. Such an internal operation on the heart is attributed to 
God.— Phil. ii. 13; 2 Thess. i. 11; Heb. xiii. 21. 

4th. The gift of the Spirit is distinguished from the gift of 
the word. — John xiv. 16; 1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19; Eph. iv. 30. 

5th. The nature of this influence is evidently different from 
that effected by the truth. — Eph. i. 19; iii. 7. And the effect 
is called a "new creation," "new birth," etc., etc. 

6th. Man by nature is dead in sin ; and needs such a direct 
intervention of supernatural power. — Turretin, "Theo. Instits.," 
L. XV., Quasstio 4. 

19. What are the different reasons assigned for calling this grace 
efficacious ? 

1st. The Jesuits and the Arminians, holding that all men 
receive sufficient grace to enable them to obey the gospel if 
they will, maintain that this grace becomes efficacious when it 
is co-operated with by the will of the individual, and in any 
case is proved to be such only by the event. 

2d. Bellarmin, and others, maintain that the same grace 
given to all is congruous to the moral nature of one man, and 
in that case efficacious, and incongruous to the nature of an- 
other, and in his case ineffectual. 

3d. Some Romanists have maintained what is called the 
doctrine of cumulative influence. The consent of the soul is 
secured by the suasive influence of the spirit, rendered effectual 
by constant repetition and long continuance. 

4th. The orthodox doctrine is that the efficacy of this grace 
is inherent in its very nature, because it is the exercise of the 
mighty power of God in the execution of his eternal and un- 
changeable purpose. 

20. In what sense is grace irresistible ? 

It must be remembered that the true Christian is the subject 
at the same time of those moral and mediate influences of grace 



452 EFFECTUAL CALLING. 

upon the will, common to him and to the uncon verted, and also 
of those special influences of grace within the ivill, which are 
certainly efficacious. The first class of influences Christians 
may, and constantly do resist, through the law of sin remain- 
ing in their members. The second class of influences are cer- 
tainly efficacious, but are neither resistible nor irresistible, be- 
cause they act from within and carry the will spontaneously 
with them. It is to be lamented that the term irresistible 
grace has ever been used, since it suggests the idea of a me- 
chanical and coercive influence upon an unwilling subject, while, 
in truth, it is the transcendent act of the infinite Creator, mak- 
ing the creature spontaneously willing. 

21. How can this grace be proved to be certainly efficacious ? 

1st. By the evidence we have given above, as to its nature, 
as the immediate operation of the mighty power of God. 

2d. By the description of the work of grace. Men by na- 
ture are "blind," "dead," "slaves," etc. The change effected 
is a " new creation," etc. 

3d. From the promises of God, which are certain. The 
means which he uses to vindicate his own faithfulness must be 
efficacious. — Ezek. xxxvi. 26; xi. 19; John vi. 45. 

4th. From the connection asserted by Scripture between call- 
ing and election. The called are the elect. As God's decrees 
are certain, the call must be efficacious. — See above, Ques. 15. 

5th. Faith and repentance are the gifts of God, and he who 
truly repents and believes is saved. Therefore, the grace which 
communicates those gifts is effectual. — Eph. ii. 8; Acts xi. 18; 
2 Tim. ii. 25. 

22. Hoiv may it be proved that this influence is congruous with 
our nature ? 

While discarding utterly the distinction made by Bellarmin 
(for which see above, Question 19), we say that efficacious grace 
is congruous to human nature as such, in the sense that the 
Spirit of God, while exerting an immediate and recreative influ- 
ence upon the soul, nevertheless acts in perfect consistency with 
the integrity of those laws of our free, rational, and moral na- 
ture, which he has himself constituted. Even in the miracu- 
lous recreation of the new birth, he acts upon our reasons and 
upon our wills in perfect accordance with the constitution of 
each. This is certain. 1st. The same God creates and recre- 
ates ; his object is not to destroy, but to restore his own work. 
2d. The Scriptures and our own experience teach that the im- 
mediately consequent acts of the soul in the exercise of im- 
planted grace, are pre-eminently rational and free. In fact, the 






THE WORD THE INVARIABLE INSTRUMENT. 453 

soul never acted normally before. — Ps. ex. 3; 2 Cor. iii. 17; 
Phil. ii. 13. 3d. This divine influence is described by such 
terms as "drawing," "teaching," "enlightening." — John vi. 
44, 45; Eph. i. 18. 

23. What do tJie Scriptures teach as to the connection of this 
influence ivith the truth ? 

In the case of the regeneration of infants the truth, of 
course, is not used. In the regeneration of adults the truth 
is always present. In the act of regeneration the Spirit acts 
immediately upon the soul, and changes its subjective state, 
while, the truth is the object consciously apprehended, upon 
which the new faculties of spiritual discernment and the new 
affections are exercised. The Spirit gives sight, the truth is the 
light discerned. The Spirit gives feeling, the truth presents the 
object beloved. — Eom. x. 14, 17; James i. 18; John xvii. 17. 

24. What reason may be assigned for the belief that the Spirit 
does not renew those adults to whom the truth is not known ? 

Negatively. The Bible never leads us to expect such an 
extension of grace, and neither the Scriptures nor our own 
experience among the modern heathen ever present us with 
any examples of such a work. 

Positively. The Scriptures always associate all spiritual 
influence with the truth, and declare the necessity of preach- 
ing the truth to the end of saving souls. — Eom. x. 14. 

25. What are the objections to the Arminian doctrine of suffi- 
cient grace ? 

They hold that God has willed the salvation of all men, and 
therefore has called all alike, giving to all a grace sufficient, 
if they will improve it. 

We object — 1st. The external call of the gospel has been 
extended to comparatively few. The heathen are responsible 
with the light of nature, and under the law of works, yet they 
have no means of grace. — Rom. i. 18-20; ii. 12-15. 

2d. This doctrine is inconsistent with God's purpose of elec- 
tion. — See above, Chapter XL 

3d. According to the Arminian system it depends upon the 
free-will of the man to make the sufficient grace of God common 
to all men efficient in his case. But the Scriptures declare that 
salvation is altogether of grace, and a gift of God. — Eph. ii. 8 ; 
2 Tim. ii. 25; Rom. ix. 15, 16. 

4th. The Scriptures expressly declare that not even all 
who receive the external call have sufficient grace. — Rom. ix. 
16-24; xi. 8. 



454 EFFECTUAL CALLING. 



AUTHOKITATIYE STATEMENTS OE DOCTEINE. 

Roman Docteine. — " Cone. Trent" Sess. 6, c. 1. — "If any one saith 
that a man can be justified (by justification they mean the removal of 
sin and infusion of a gracious habit of soul) by his own works, whether 
done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without 
the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. C. 2. — If 
any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only 
for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit 
eternal life, as if, by free-will without grace, he were able to do both, 
though hardly indeed and with difficulty, let him be anathema. G. 3. — If 
any one saith, that without prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, 
and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he 
ought, so as that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him ; 
let him be anathema. C. 4. — If any one says that mau's free-will moved 
and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise 
co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the 
grace of justification ; that it can not refuse its consent, if it would, but 
that as something inanimate it does nothing whatever, and is merely pas- 
sive; let him be anathema. Can. 5. — If any one saith that since Adam's 
sin, the free-will of man is lost and extinguished; or that it is a thing 
with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment in fine intro- 
duced into the world by Satan; let him be anathema." 

Docteine of the Geeek Chtjech. — " Jerem. in Act. Witem." — " Even 
after the fall nothing hinders man from turning away from the bad, and 
superinduced upon this, doing good and choosing the right, as one who 
has free- anil. . . . From all these it is plain, that it is our part to 
awake and to obey, and we have ability to choose the good as well as the 
bad. We need only one thing, i. e., God's help, in order to succeed in 
the good and be saved, and without this help we have no strength to 
finish the work." 

Ltjtheean Doctbtne. — "Form. Concordia? ," p. 662. — "But before 
man is enlightened, converted, regenerated, and drawn by the Holy 
Spirit, he is not able of himself, and by his own natural powers, in 
things spiritual and (tending) to his own conversion and regeneration, 
to begin, to produce, or to co-operate in any thing, any more than is a 
stone astock or a clod. " lb. p. 589. — " What Doctor Luther wrote — ' That 
the will of man holds itself purely passive in conversion, ' must be re- 
ceived rightly and fittingly, to wit, with respect to divine grace enkin- 
dling the new movements, that is, it ought to be understood concerning 
that, when the Spirit of God acts upon the will of man by the word 
heard, or by the use of the sacraments, and produces in man conversion 
and regeneration. For after the Holy Spirit has wrought this very thing, 
and has by his own divine energy alone changed and renewed the will of 
man; then, indeed, this new will is an instrument of the Holy Spirit of 
God, so that it may not only lay hold of grace, but also co-operate with 
the Holy Spirit in the works following." 

Eefoemed Docteine. — " Conf. Faith," ch. x., \ 1. — "All those whom 
God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his 
appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, 
out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace 
and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and 
savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of 
stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and 
by his almighty power determining them to that which is good ; and 



AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS OF DOCTRINE. 455 

effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ ; yet so as they come most 
freely, being made willing by his grace." \ 2. — "This effectual call is 
of God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen 
in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and 
renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, 
and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it." "L. Cat.," Q. 67; 
"S. Cat.," Q. 31. — "-Canons of Synod of Dori," chs. iii. and iv., "Rejec. 
Er.," Error 4. — " (They are renounced) who teach that an unregenerate 
man is not strictly and totally dead in sins, nor void of all power as to 
spiritual good; but that he is able to hunger and thirst after righteous- 
ness, and to offer the sacrifice of a broken and contrite spirit, which is 
accepted of God." Art. 12. — " (Regeneration) is plainly supernatural, a 
most powerful and at the same time most gentle operation, wonderful, 
secret, and inexpressible, not inferior to a creation, nor less than a reviv- 
ing of the dead; so that all those, in whose hearts God works in this 
wonderful manner, are surely regenerated infallibly and effectually, and 
act faith. And then the will, now renewed, is not only acted on and 
moved by God, but being so moved, also itself acts. Wherefore also man 
himself is rightly said, through this received grace, to believe and repent. " 

Remonstkant Docteine. — "Conf Remonstr." 17, 6. — "Therefore we 
decide that the grace of God is the beginning, progress, and completion 
of all good, so that the regenerate person himself, is not able to think, 
will, or do any saving good, without this previous prevenient, exciting, 
following, and co-operating grace." 

"Apol. Conf Remonstr. ," p. 162, b. — "Grace is called efficacious 
from the result, which, however can be taken in a twofold sense: First, 
so that grace may be judged to have, of itself, no power to produce con- 
sent in the will, but its entire efficacy may depend upon the human will : 
or, Secondly, so that grace may be judged to have of itself sufficient 
power to produce consent in the will, but because this power is partial, 
it can not go out in act without the co-operation of the free human will, 
and hence, that it may have effect, it depends on free-will. The Re- 
monstrants wish the "second" to be taken as their meaning." 



CHAPTER XXIX. 

REGENERATION. 

1. What are the various Scripture terms by which this work 
of God is designated ? 

1st. "Creating anew."— Eph. iv. 24. 2d. "Begetting."— 
James i. 18. 3d. "Quickening." — John v. 21; Eph. ii. 5. 4th. 
"Calling out of darkness into marvellous light." — 1 Pet. ii. 9. 
The subjects of it are said, 1st, to be "alive from the dead." 
Eom. vi. 13. 2d. To be "new creatures." — 2 Cor. v. 17. 3d. 
To be "born again." — John iii. 3, 7. 4th. To be "God's work- 
manship." — Eph. ii. 10. 

2. What is the Pelagian view of regeneration ? 

They hold that sin can be predicated only of volitions, and 
that it is essential to the liberty and responsibility of man that 
he is always as able to cease from as to continue in sin. Re- 
generation is therefore a mere reformation of life and habit. 
The man who has chosen to transgress the law, now chooses 
to obey it. 

3. What is the doctrine of the Bomish church on this subject ? 

The Romanists, 1st, confound together justification and 
sanctification, making these one act of God, whereby, for his 
own glory, for Christ's merits' sake, by the efficient powers of 
the Holy Ghost, and through the instrumentality of baptism, 
he at once cancels the guilt of our sins, and delivers us from 
the inherent power and defilement of original sin. — "Council 
of Trent," Sess. 6, Chap. vii. 

2d. They hold the doctrine that regeneration is accomplished 
only through the instrumentality of baptism. This is effectual 
in every instance of its application to an infant. In the case 
of adults its virtue may be either resisted and nullified, or re- 
ceived and improved. In baptism (1) sins are forgiven ; (2) the 
moral nature of the subject is renewed, (3) he is made a son 
and heir of God. — "Cat. Rom.," Part II., Chap. ii. 



VARIOUS VIEWS STATED. 457 

4. What are the different views as to baptismal regeneration 
entertained in the Church of England ? 

1st. The theory of the party styled Puseyite, which is es- 
sentially the same with that of the Romish church. They 
hold in general that the Holy Spirit, through the instrumen- 
tality of baptism, implants a germ of spiritual life in the soul, 
which may long remain latent, and may be subsequently de- 
veloped, or blasted. 

2d. That of a large party most ably represented by the 
late Bishop H. U. Underclonk, in his "Essay on Regeneration," 
Phila., 1835. He maintained that there are two distinct regen- 
erations; one a change of state or relation, and the other a change 
of nature. The first is baptismal, the second moral, though both 
are spiritual in so far as both are wrought by the Holy Ghost. 
The first or baptismal regeneration is a new birth, since it con- 
stitutes us sons of God, as the Jews were made his peculiar 
people by that covenant, the seal of which was circumcision. 
The second is a new birth, or creation in a higher sense, being 
a gradual sanctifying change wrought in the whole moral char- 
acter by the Holy Ghost, and not necessarily connected with 
baptism. 

5. What view of regeneration is held by those in America ivho 
maintain the " Exercise Scheme'? 

These theologians deny the existence in the soul of any per- 
manent moral habits or dispositions, and admit the existence 
only of the soul or agent and his acts or "exercises." In the 
natural man the series of acts are wholly depraved. In the re- 
generated man a new series of holy acts are created by the 
Holy Ghost, and continued by his power. — Emmons, Sermon 
LXiV., on the "New Birth." 

6. What is the Neiv Haven vieiv, advocated by Dr. N. W. 
Taylor, on this subject ? 

Dr. Taylor agreed with the advocates of the "Exercise 
Scheme," that there is nothing in the soul but the agent and 
his actions; but he differed from them by holding that man 
and not God is the independent author of human actions. He 
held that when God and the world is held up before the mind, 
regeneration consists in an act of the sinner in choosing God 
as his chief good, thus confounding regeneration and conver- 
sion. The Holy Spirit, in some unknown way, assists in re- 
straining the active operation of the natural, selfish principle 
which prefers the world as its chief good. "A mind thus de- 
tached from the world as its supreme good instantly chooses 



458 RE GENERA TION. 

God for its portion, -under the impulse of that inherent desire 
for happiness, without which no object could ever be regarded 
as good, as either desirable or lovely." This original motive 
to that choice of God which is regeneration is merely natural, 
and neither morally good nor bad. Thus — 1st. Regeneration 
is man's own act. 2d. The Holy Spirit helps man, (1) by sus- 
pending the controlling power of his sinful, selfish disposition ; 
(2) by presenting to his mind in the clear light of truth the 
superiority of God as an object of choice. 3d. Then the sinner 
chooses God as his chief good under the conviction of his un- 
derstanding, and from a motive of natural, though not sinful, 
self-love, which is to be distinguished from selfishness, which 
is of the essence of sin. — See " Christian Spectator," December, 
1829, pp. 693, 694, etc. 

7. What is the common doctrine held by evangelical Christians ? 

1st. That there are in the soul, besides its several faculties, 
habits, or dispositions, of which some are innate and others 
are acquired, which lay the foundation for the soul's exercising 
its faculties in some particular way. Thus we intuitively judge 
a man's moral disposition to be permanently evil when we see 
him habitually acting sinfully, or to be permanently good when 
we see him habitually acting righteously. 

2d. These dispositions are anterior to moral action, and de- 
termine its character as good or evil. 

3d. In creation God made the disposition of Adam's heart 
holy. 

4th. In the new creation God recreates the governing dis- 
position of the regenerated man's heart holy. 

It is, therefore, properly called a "regeneration," a "new 
creation," a "new birth." 

8. When it is said that regeneration consists in giving a new 
heart, or in implanting a new principle or disposition, ivhat is meant 
by the terms "heart" "principle" or "disposition" ? 

President Edwards says, " By a principle of nature in this 
place, I mean that foundation which is laid in nature, either 
old or new, for any particular kind or manner of exercise of 
the faculties of the soul. So this new ' spiritual sense ' is not 
a new faculty of understanding, but it is a new foundation laid 
in the nature of the soul for a new kind of exercise of the same 
faculty of understanding. So that new holy disposition of heart 
that attends this new sense is not a new faculty of will, but a 
foundation laid in the nature of the soul for a new kind of 
exercise of the same faculty of will." — Edwards on " Religious 
Affections," Pt. III., sec. 1. 



IT INVOLVES NO PHYSICAL CHANGE. 459 

The term "heart," signifying that prevailing moral dispo- 
sition that determines the volitions and actions, is the phrase 
most commonly used in Scripture. — Matt. xii. 33, 35; xv. 19; 
Luke vi. 43, 45. 

9. Hoiv may it be shown that this vieiv of regeneration does not 
represent it as involving any change in the essence of the soul? 

This charge is brought against the orthodox doctrine by all 
those who deny that there is any thing in the soul but its con- 
stitutional faculties and their exercises. They hence argue that 
if any thing be changed except the mere exercises of the soul, 
its fundamental constitution would be physically altered. In 
opposition to this, we argue that we have precisely the same 
evidence for the existence of a permanent moral quality or 
disposition inherent in the will, as the reason why a good 
man acts habitually righteously, or a bad man viciously, that 
we have for the existence of the invisible soul itself, or of any 
of its faculties, as the reason why a man acts at all, or why 
his actions are such as thought, emotion, volition. It is not 
possible for us to conceive of the choice being produced in us 
by the Holy Spirit in more than three ways: "First, by his 
direct agency in producing the choice, in which case it would 
be no act of ours. Second* by addressing such motives to our 
constitutional and natural principles of self-love as would in- 
duce us to make the choice, in which case there would be no 
morality in the act. Or, thirdly, by producing such a relish 
for the divine character, that the soul as spontaneously and 
immediately rejoices in God as its portion as it rejoices in the 
perception of beauty." 

" If our Maker can endow us, not only with the general sus- 
ceptibility of love, but also with a specific disposition to love 
our children ; if he can give us a discernment and susceptibility 
of natural beauty, he may give us a taste for spiritual loveliness. 
And if that taste, by reason of sin, is vitiated and perverted, he 
may restore it by means of his spirit in regeneration." — Hodge's 
Essays. 

10. In what sense may the soul be said to be passive in regen- 
eration ? 

Dr. Taylor maintains that regeneration is that act of the 
soul in which man chooses God as his portion. Thus, the man 
himself, and not God, is the agent. 

But the Christian church, on the contrary, holds that in 
regeneration the Holy Ghost is the agent, and man the subject. 
The act of the Holy Spirit, in implanting a new principle, does 
not interfere with the essential activity of the soul itself, but 



460 REGENERATION. 

simply gives to that activity a new direction, for the soul, 
though active, is nevertheless capable of being acted upon. 
And although the soul is necessarily active at the very time 
it is regenerated, yet it is rightly said to be passive with respect 
to that act of the Holy Spirit whereby it is regenerated. 

1st. The soul, under the conviction of the Holy Ghost, and 
in the exercise of merely natural feelings, regards some aspect 
of saving truth, and strives to embrace it. 2d. The Holy Ghost, 
by an exertion of creative power, changes the governing dispo- 
sition of the heart in a manner inscrutable, and by an influence 
not apprehended by the consciousness of the subject. 3d. Simul- 
taneously the soul exercises new affections and experimentally 
embraces the truth. 

11. What is the difference between regeneration and conversion? 

The term conversion is often used in a wide sense as includ- 
ing both the change of nature and the exercise of that nature 
as changed. When distinguished from regeneration, however, 
conversion signifies the first exercise of the new disposition 
implanted in regeneration, i. e., in freely turning unto God. 

Kegeneration is God's act; conversion is ours, regenera- 
tion is the implantation of a gracious principle; conversion is 
the exercise of that principle. Kegeneration is never a matter 
of direct consciousness to the subject of it; conversion always 
is such to the agent of it. Regeneration is a single act, com- 
plete in itself, and never repeated ; conversion, as the beginning 
of holy living, is the commencement of a series, constant, end- 
less, and progressive. " Draw me, and I will run after thee." 
Cant. i. 4. This distinction is signalized by the divines of 
the seventeenth century (Turretin, L. 15, Ques. 4, § 13) by the 
phrases u conversio habitualis seu passiva" i. e., the infusion of a 
gracious habit of soul by God, in respect to which the subject 
is passive; and u conversio actualis seu aetiva," i. e., the consequent 
acts of faith and repentance elicited by co-operative grace and 
acted by the subject. 

12. How can it be proved that there is any such thing as that 
commonly called regeneration ? 

1st. By those Scriptures that declare such a change to be 
necessary. — John iii. 3; 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15. 

2d. By those passages which describe the change. — Eph. 
ii. 5; iv. 24; James i. 18; 1 Pet. i. 23. 

3d. From the fact that it was necessary for the most moral 
as well as for the most profligate. — 1 Cor. xv. 10; Gal. i. 13-16. 

4th. That this inward change is not a mere reformation is 



SUPERNATURAL ILLUMINATION. 461 

proved by its being referred to the Holy Spirit. — Eph. i. 19, 20 ; 
Titus iii. 5. 

5th. From the comparison of man's state in grace with his 
state by nature. — Kom. vi. 13; viii. 6-10; Eph. v. 8. 

6th. From the experience of all Christians, and from the 
testimony of their lives. 

13. What is the nature of supernatural illumination ? 

The soul of man is a unit. A radically defective or per- 
verted condition of any faculty will injuriously affect the exer- 
cise of all the other faculties. The essence of sin consists in 
the perverted moral dispositions and affections of the will. But 
a perverted condition of these affections must affect the exer- 
cises of the intellect, concerning all moral objects, as much as 
the volitions themselves. We can not love or desire any object 
unless we perceive its loveliness, neither can we intellectually 
perceive its loveliness unless its qualities are congenial to our 
inherent taste or dispositions. Sin, therefore, is essentially 
deceitful, and man as a sinner is spiritually blind. This does 
not consist in any physical defect. He possesses all the facul- 
ties requisite to enable him to see the beauty, and to experi- 
ence the power of the truth, but his whole nature is morally 
perverted through his evil dispositions. As soon as these are 
changed he will see, and, seeing, love and obey the truth, 
although no constitutional change is wrought in his nature, 
i. e., no new faculty given, but only his perverted faculties 
morally rectified. This illumination is called supernatural, 
1st, because, having been lost, it can be restored only by the 
immediate power of God. 2d. In contradistinction to the 
maimed condition of man's present depraved nature. It, how- 
ever, conveys no new truths to the mind, nor does it relieve 
the Christian, in any degree, from the diligent and prayerful 
study of the Word, nor does it lead to any fanciful interpreta- 
tions of Scripture foreign to the plain sense of the letter; it only 
leads to the perception and appreciation of the native spiritual 
beauty and power of the inspired word, and the truths therein 
revealed. 

14. How may it be proved that believers are the subjects of such 
illumination ? 

1st. It is necessary. — 1 Cor. ii. 14; 2 Cor. iii. 14; iv. 3; 
John xvi. 3. From the constitution of our nature we must 
apprehend an object as lovely before we can love it for its own 
sake. 

2d. The Scriptures expressly affirm it. " To know God is 
eternal life."— John xvii. 3; 1 Cor. ii. 12, 13; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. 



462 RE GENERA TION. 

i. 18; Phil. i. 9; Col. iii. 10; 1 John iv. 7; v. 20; Ps. xix. 7, 8; 
xliii. 3, 4. 

As the soul is a unit, a change in its radical moral disposi- 
tions must simultaneously modify the exercise of all its facul- 
ties in relation to moral and spiritual objects. The soul can 
not love that the loveliness of which it does not perceive, neither 
can it perceive the loveliness of an object which is totally un- 
congenial to its own nature. The first effect of regeneration, 
or a radical change of moral disposition, in the order of nature, 
therefore, is to open the eyes of our understandings to the 
excellency of divine truth, and the second effect is the going 
forth of the renewed affections toward that excellency so per- 
ceived. This is what Pres. Edwards (" Religious Affections," 
Pt. III., sec. 4) calls "-the sense of the heart." 

15. What is the nature of that conviction of sin which is the 
attendant of regeneration ? 

Spiritual illumination immediately leads to the perception 
of the righteousness, goodness, and exceeding breadth and 
exactness of God's law, and by contrast of the exceeding sin- 
fulness of sin in the abstract, Rom. vii. 7, 13; and above all of 
his own sin — thus revealing, in contrast to the divine purity 
and righteousness, the pollution of his own heart, his total ill- 
desert, and his entire helplessness in all his relations to God. 
Job xlii. 5, 6. This is a practical experimental knowledge, — 
produced by the wrestling eXeyxoS, of the Holy Ghost (John 
xvi. 8) — of guilt, of pollution, and of helplessness. 

16. What is the nature of that conviction of sin ivhich often 
occurs before or without regeneration, and how may it be distin- 
guished from tlie genuine ? 

Natural conscience is an essential and indestructible element 
of human nature, including a sense of right and wrong, and pain- 
ful emotions associated with a sense of the latter. Although 
this faculty may be for a time perverted, and the sensibility 
associated with it hardened, yet it may be, and often is, in the 
case of the unregenerate, quickened to a painful activity, lead- 
ing to a sense of ill-desert, pollution, helplessness, and danger. 
In eternity this will constitute a large measure of the suffer- 
ings of the lost. 

On the other hand, that conviction of sin which is peculiar 
to the regenerate is distinguished by being accompanied by a 
sense of the positive beauty of holiness, and an earnest desire 
to escape not merely the pangs of remorse, but chiefly the 
pollution and the dominion of sin. 



ITS ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. 463 

17. What is the nature of those new affections which flow from 
the renewal of the heart, and how are they distinguished from tJie 
exercises of unrenewed men ? 

Spiritual illumination gives the perception of that loveliness 
which the renewed affections of the heart embrace and delight 
in. These are spiritual because they are formed in us, and 
preserved in healthy exercise by the Spirit of God. They are 
holy because their objects are holy, and because they delight 
in their objects as holy. The affections of unrenewed men, on 
the other hand, however pure or even religious they may be, 
are merely natural in their source, and attach merely to natural 
objects. They may be grateful to God for his benefits, but they 
never love him simply for the perfections of his own nature. 

18. What is the nature of that new obedience which results from 
regeneration, and how does it differ from mere morality ? 

The perfect law is spiritual, and consequently requires per- 
fect conformity of being as well as of action; the central and 
governing principles of life must be in harmony with it. The 
regenerate man, therefore, thinks, and feels, and wills, and acts 
in conformity with the spirit of the whole word of God as far 
as revealed to him, because it is God's word, from a motive of 
love to God, and with an eye single to his glory. The sancti- 
fied affections are the spring, the heart-searching law the rule, 
and the glory of God the end, and the Holy Ghost the co- 
worker in every act of Christian obedience. 

Morality, on the other hand, has its spring in the merely 
natural affections; it aims only at the conformity of the outward 
actions to the letter of the law, while self, in some form of self- 
righteousness, reputation, safety, or happiness, is the determin- 
ing end. 

19. How may the absolute necessity of regeneration be proved ? 

1st. The Scriptures assert it. — John iii. 3; Kom. viii. 6; Eph. 
ii. 10; iv. 21-24 2d. It is proved from the nature of man as a 
sinner. — Kom. vii. 18; viii. 7-9; 1 Cor. ii. 14; Eph. ii. 1. 3d. 
From the nature of heaven. — Isa. xxxv. 8 ; Hi. 1 ; Matt. v. 8 ; 
xiii. 41; Heb. xii. 14; Rev. xxi. 27. The restoration of holiness 
is the grand end of the whole plan of salvation. — Eph. i. 4; 
v. 5, 26, 27. 

20. Are infants susceptible of regeneration; and, if so, what is 
the nature of regeneration in them ? 

Infants, as well as adults, are rational and moral agents, 
and by nature totally depraved. The difference is, that the 



464 REGENERA TION. 

faculties of infants are in the germ, while those of adults are 
developed. As regeneration is a change wrought by creative 
power in the inherent moral condition of the soul, infants may 
plainly be the subjects of it in precisely the same sense as 
adults ; in both cases the operation is miraculous, and therefore 
inscrutable. 

The fact is established by what the Scriptures teach of in- 
nate depravity, of infant salvation, of infant circumcision and 
baptism. — Luke i. 15; xviii. 15, 16; Acts ii. 39. See below, 
Chapter XLII. 

AUTHOEITATTVE STATEMENTS. 

Roman Doctrine. — "Cone. Trent," Sess. vi. Ch. 7. — "Justification 
(Regeneration) is not only a remission of sins, but also a renewal of the 
inner man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby 
a man born unjust becomes just, and from an enemy becomes a friend, 
that so he may be an heir according to the hope of eternal life. The 
causes of this justification are — the final cause, the glory of God and of 
Christ, and eternal life ; the efficient cause, the merciful God who gratu- 
itously washes and sanctifies, sealing and anointing with the Holy Spirit 
of promise, who is the earnest of our inheritance; the meritorious cause, 
his own most beloved and only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, 
who, when we were enemies, did, on account of the great love where- 
with he loved us, merit justification for us by his most holy passion on 
the wood of the cross; and did for us, make satisfaction to God the Fa- 
ther; also the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism, which is the 
sacrament of faith, without which (faith) justification has never come to 
any one; and finally the formal cause, is the righteousness of God, not 
that whereby he is himself righteous, but that whereby he makes us 
righteous, namely that with which we, being by him endowed, are re- 
newed in the spirit of our mind, and are not only reputed, but are truly 
called, and are righteous." 

Lutheran Doctrine. — "Formula Concordioz" (Hase), page 679. — 
"For conversion is such a change of the man through the operation of 
the Holy Spirit in the understanding, will, and heart of man, that he is 
able (i. e., by the operation of the Holy Spirit) to embrace the offered 
grace. lb. p. 681. — But the understanding and will of the man not as 
yet renewed are only the subject to be converted, because they are the 
understanding and will of a man spiritually dead, in whom the Holy 
Ghost works conversion and renewal ; in which work the man to be con- 
verted contributes nothing, but is acted upon, until he is regenerated. 
But afterwards in other good works enduring, he co-operates with the 
Holy Spirit, doing those things which are well pleasing to God, in that 
manner which has now been declared by us fully enough in this treatise. " 

Reformed Doctrine and Remonstrant Doctrine. — See under Chap- 
ter XXVIII. 



CHAPTER XXX. 

FAITH. 

1. What, according to its etymology and New Testament usage, 
is the meaning of the ivord ititins, "faith" " belief? " 

It is derived from the verb miSco, to 'persuade, convince. In 
the New Testament it is used — 1st. To express that state of 
mind which is induced by persuasion. — Rom. xiv. 22. 2d. It 
often signifies good faith, fidelity, sincerity. — Rom. hi. 3; Ti- 
tus ii. 10. 3d. Assent to the truth.— Phil. i. 27; 2 Thes. ii. 13. 
4th. Faith towards, on, or in God (hiti 9 eii, itpoi). — Heb. vi. 1 ; 
1 Thes. i. 8; 1 Pet. i. 21; Mark xi. 22. In Christ, Acts xxiv. 
24; Gal. iii. 26; and in his blood, Rom. hi. 22, 25; Gal. ii. 16, 20. 
5th. It is used for the object of faith, viz., the revelation of the 
gospel. — Rom. i. 5; x. 8; 1 Tim. iv. 1. Robinson's "Lex. of 
New Testament." 

2. State the different meanings of the verb 7ti<5rsvsiv (to believe), 
and of the 'phrases 7ti6rsvetv eis, or km (to believe in or upon). 

7tidrevsiv signifies — 

1st. To assent to, to be persuaded of the truth. — Luke i. 20; 
John iii. 12. 

2d. To credit the truth of a person. — John v. 46. 

3d. To trust, to have confidence in. — Acts xxvii. 25. 

The phrases mdreveiv sis, or eiti 9 are always used to express 
trust and confidence terminating upon God, or upon Christ as 
Mediator. We are often said to believe or credit Moses or other 
teachers of the truth, but we can believe in or on God or Christ 
alone. Upon God, John xiv. 1; Rom. iv. 24; 1 Pet. i. 21; upon 
Christ. — Acts xvi, 31 ; John iii. 15-18. 

3. How may faith be defined? 

Faith is a complex act of the soul, involving the concurrent 
action of the understanding and the will, and modified in dif- 
ferent instances of its exercise by the nature of its object, and 
of the evidence upon which it rests. The most general defini- 
tion, embracing all its modifications, affirms faith to be "assent 
30 



466 FAITH. 

to truth upon the exhibition of the appropriate evidence. But 
it is evident that its nature must vary with the nature of the 
truth believed, and especially with the nature of the evidence 
upon which our assent is founded. Assent to a speculative or 
abstract truth is a speculative act ; assent to a moral truth is a 
moral act ; assent to a promise made to ourselves is an act of 
trust. Our belief that the earth moves round its axis is a mere 
assent; our belief in the excellence of virtue is of the nature of 
a moral judgment; our belief in a promise is an act of trust." 
So likewise with respect to the evidence upon which our faith 
is founded. "The same man may believe the same truth on 
different grounds. One may believe the Christian system sim- 
ply because others around him believe it, and he has been 
brought up to receive it without question ; this is the faith of 
credulity. Another may believe it on the ground of its external 
evidence, e. </., of miracle, prophecy, history, its logical consist- 
ency as a system, or its plausibility as a theory in accounting 
for the phenomena of creation and providence. This is specu- 
lative faith. Another may believe, because the truths of the 
Bible recommend themselves to his reason and conscience, and 
accord with his inward experience. This faith is founded on 
moral evidence. There is another faith founded on the intrinsic 
excellence, beauty, and suitableness of the truth from a sense 
and love of its moral excellence. This is spiritual faith, which 
is the gift of God."— "Way of Life." 

Beligious faith is belief of the truth on the testimony of God, 
It includes, (1) Notitia, knowledge ; (2) Assensus, assent ; (3) Fi- 
ducia, trust. 

4. How far is faith an act of the understanding, and how far 
an act of the will ? 

The one indivisible soul knows and loves, desires and de- 
cides, and these several acts of the soul meet on the same 
object. The soul can neither love, desire, nor choose that 
which it does not know, nor can it know an object as true or 
good without some affection of will towards it. Assent to a 
purely speculative truth may be simply an act of understand- 
ing, but belief in a moral truth, in testimony, in promises, must 
be a complex act, embracing both the understanding and the 
will. The understanding apprehends the truth to be believed, 
and decides upon the validity of the evidence, but the disposi- 
tion to believe testimony, or moral evidence, has its foundation 
in the will. Actual trust in a promise is an act of the will, and 
not a simple judgment as to its trustworthiness. There is an 
exact relation between the moral judgment and the affections, 
and the will, as the seat of the moral affections, determines 



RELATION OF FAITH AXD KNOWLEDGE. 467 

the moral judgments. Therefore, as a man is responsible for 
his will, he is responsible for his faith. 

As far as faith includes an act of " cognition " it is, of course, 
purely an act of the understanding. But as far as it includes 
"Assent" and "Trust," it involves also the spontaneous and 
active powers of the soul, that is, "the will," and in its higher 
exercise it often involves deliberate volition itself. 

5. What is the difference between knowledge and faith ? 

Generally, knowledge is the apprehension of an object as 
true, and faith is an assent to its truth. It is obvious, there- 
fore, that in this general sense of the term every exercise of 
faith includes the knowledge of the object assented to. It 
is impossible to distinguish between the apprehension of the 
truthfulness of a purely speculative truth and an assent to it as 
true. In such a case faith and knowledge appear identical. 
But while the apprehension of the trustworthiness of a promise 
is knowledge, the actual reliance upon it is faith. The appre- 
hension of the moral truthfulness of an object is knowledge, 
the assent to it, as good and desirable, is faith. 

Sometimes the Scriptures use the word knowledge as equiv- 
alent to faith. — John x. 38; 1 John ii. 3. 

Generally, however, the Scriptures restrict the term knowl- 
edge to the apprehension of those ideas which we derive through 
the natural sources of sensation and reason and human testi- 
mony, while the term faith is restricted to the assent to those 
truths which rest upon the direct testimony of God alone, object- 
ively revealed in the Scriptures, as discerned through spiritual 
illumination. Thus, faith is the " evidence of things not seen." 
Heb. xi. 1. We are commanded " to walk by faith, and not 
by sight." — 2 Cor. v. 7. Here the distinction between faith 
and knowledge has reference particularly to the mode of know- 
ing. The one is natural and discursive, the other supernatural 
and intuitive. 

6. What distinction do the Romanists make between implicit and 
explicit faith ? 

Romanists and Protestants agree that it is not essential to 
faith that its object should be comprehended by the understand- 
ing. But, on the other hand, Protestants affirm, and Roman- 
ists deny, that it is essential that the object believed should be 
apprehended by the mind; that is, that knowledge of what we 
believe is essential to faith. The Romanists, therefore, have 
invented the distinction between explicit faith, which termi- 
nates upon an object distinct^ apprehended by the mind, and 
implicit faith, which a man exercises in the truth of proposi- 



468 FAITH. 

tions of which he knows nothing. They hold that if a man 
exercises explicit faith in a general proposition, he therein ex- 
ercises implicit faith in every thing embraced in it, whether 
he knows what they are or not. If a man, for instance, has 
explicit faith that the church is an infallible teacher, he thereby 
exercises virtual or implicit faith in every doctrine taught by 
the church, although he may be ignorant as to what those doc- 
trines are. They distinguish, moreover, between those truths 
which it is necessary to regard with explicit faith, and those 
which may be held implicitly. They commonly teach that it 
is necessary for the people to hold only three doctrines expli- 
citly, 1st, that God is; 2d, that he is a rewarder, including 
future rewards and punishments; 3d, that he is a redeemer. 

" This doctrine has been recently revived by the Puseyites, 
under the title of reserve. The distinguishing truths of the 
gospel, instead of being clearly presented, should, it is said, 
be concealed or kept in reserve. The people may gaze upon 
the cross as the symbol of redemption, but need not know 
whether it is the form, or the material, or the great sacrifice 
once enacted on it, to which the efficacy is due. 'Keligious 
light is intellectual darkness,' says Dr. Newman. This theory 
rests upon the same false assumption that faith can exist with- 
out knowledge." — Dr. Hodge. 

7. What is the difference hetween knowing and understanding 
a thing, and how far is knowledge essential to faith ? 

We know a thing when we simply apprehend it as true. 
We understand it only when we fully comprehend its nature, 
and the perfect consistency of all its properties with each other 
and with the entire system of things of which it forms a part. 
We know the doctrine of the trinity when its several parts are 
stated to us, but no creature can ever understand it. 

That knowledge, or simple apprehension of the object be- 
lieved and confided in, is essential to faith, is evident from the 
nature of faith itself. It is that state of mind which bears the 
relation of assent to a certain object, involving that action of 
understanding and of will which is appropriate to that object. 
If a man loves, fears, or believes, he must love, fear, or believe 
some object, for it is evident that these states of mind can exist 
only in relation to their appropriate objects. If a real object is 
not present the imagination may present an ideal one, but that 
very fiction of the imagination must first be apprehended as 
true (or known) before it can be assented to as true (or be- 
lieved). Just as it is impossible for a man to enjoy beauty with- 
out perceiving it in some object of the mind, or to exercise 
complacent love in a virtuous act without perceiving it, so it 



KNOWLEDGE ESSENTIAL TO FAITH. 469 

is, for the same reason, impossible for a man to exercise faith 
without knowing what he believes. "Implicit faith" is a per- 
fectly unmeaning formula. 

8. Hoiu can the fact that knowledge is essential to faith be proved 
from Scripture? 

1st. From the etymology of the word rtitins, from 7tsi6Go, to 
persuade, instruct. Faith is that state of mind which is the 
result of teaching. 2d. From the use of the word knowledge 
in Scripture as equivalent to faith. — John x. 38 ; 1 John ii. 3. 
3d. From what the Bible teaches as to the source of faith. It 
comes by teaching. — Rom. x. 14-17. 4th. The Scriptures de- 
clare that the regenerate are enlightened, have received the 
unction, and know all things. — Acts xxvi. 18; 1 Cor. ii. 12-15; 
Col. iii. 10. 5th. The means of salvation consist in the dissem- 
ination of the truth. Christ is the great teacher. Ministers 
are teachers. — 1 Cor. iv. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 2; iv. 13. Christians are 
begotten by the truth, sanctified by the truth. — John xvii. 19 ; 
James i. 18. Dr. Hodge. 

9. How are those passages to be explained which speak of knowl- 
edge as distinguished from faith? 

Although every act of faith presupposes an act of knowl- 
edge, yet both the faith and the knowledge vary very much, 
both with the nature of the object known and believed, and 
with the manner in which the knowledge is received, and with 
the evidence upon which the faith rests. The faith which the 
Scriptures distinguish from knowledge is the strong persuasion 
of things not seen. It is the conviction of the truth of things 
which do not fall within the compass of our own observation 
which may entirely transcend the powers of our understand- 
ing, and which rest upon the simple testimony of God. This 
testimony faith relies upon in spite of whatever to human rea- 
son appears inconsistent or impossible. 

Knowledge though essential to faith may be distinguished 
from it — 1st. As faith includes also an act of the will assent- 
ing, in addition to the act of the understanding apprehending. 
2d. As knowledge derived through a natural is distinguished 
from knowledge derived through a divine source. 3d. As pres- 
ent imperfect apprehension of divine things (i. e., faith) differs 
from that perfect knowledge of divine things we shall have in 
heaven. — 1 Cor. xiii. 12. 

10. If faith necessarily includes knoidedge, how can men be com- 
manded to believe? 

1st. No man is ever commanded to believe that which is 



470 FAITH. 

not revealed to him, either in the light of nature or by the 
inspired word. 2d. No man is ever commanded to believe a 
purely speculative truth. The truths of religion rest on the 
testimony of God. They are enforced by moral evidence, and 
faith in them involves a moral and spiritual knowledge of them, 
and delight in them. Moral evidence can be appreciated only 
by a mind possessed of moral sensibility. And such moral in- 
sensibility as leads to blindness to the distinction between right 
and wrong is itself a very aggravated state of depravity. 

The Scriptures, therefore, luminous with their own self- 
evidencing light, present the truth to all to whom they come, 
and demand its instant reception upon the testimony of God. 
If that evidence is not felt to be conclusive by any one, it must 
be because of the sinful blindness of his mind. Therefore Christ 
says, "ye will not come unto me that ye may have life." And 
unbelief is uniformly charged to the "evil heart." 

11. What are the ultimate grounds of that assent to the truth 
which is of the essence of faith ? 

In general, the ultimate ground upon which our assent to 
the truth of any "object of knowledge rests is the veracity of 
God. The testimony of our senses, the integrity of our con- 
sciences, the intuitions of our reasons, all rest upon his vera- 
city as Creator. Practically the mind is moved to this assent 
through our universal and instinctive confidence in the con- 
stitution of our own natures. 

Eeligious faith rests, 1st, upon the faithfulness of God as 
pledged in his supernatural revelation, John iii. 33; 2d, upon 
the evidence of spiritual illumination, personal experience of 
the power of the truth, and the witness of the Holy Ghost, the 
Sanctifier, and thus "not in the wisdom of man, but in the 
power of God." — 1 Cor. ii. 5-12. 

12. What are the two kinds of evidence by which ive know that 

God has revealed certain truths as objects of faith ? 

1st. The evidence which resides in the truth itself. Moral, 
spiritual, experimental, rational. — John vi. 63; xiv. 17, 26; Jer. 
xxiii. 29. 2d. The accrediting evidence of the presence and 
power of God accompanying the promulgation of the truth, 
and proving that it is from him. These are miracles, provi- 
dential dispensations, the fulfilment of prophecy, etc. — John v, 
36;Heb. ii. 4. 

13. Hoiv can it be shown that the authority of the Church is not 
a ground of faith ? 

See above, Chapter V., Question 18. 



DISTINCTION BETWEEN HISTORICAL AND SA VING FAITH. 471 

14 What is the nature of historical faith, and upon what evi- 
dence does it rest? 

That mode of purely rational faith called historical is that 
apprehension of and assent to the truth which regards it in 
its purely rational aspects as mere facts of history, or as mere 
parts of a logical system of opinion. Its appropriate evidence 
is purely rational, e. q., the solution afforded by the Scriptures 
of the facts of history and experience, and the evidence of his- 
tory, prophecy, miracles, etc. 

15. What is the nature of temporary faith, and of the evidence 
upon which it is founded? 

Temporary faith is that state of mind often experienced in 
this world by impenitent hearers of the gospel, induced by the 
moral evidence of the truth, the common influences of the Holy 
Ghost, and the power of religious sympathy. Sometimes the 
excited imagination joyfully appropriates the promises of the 
gospel. — Matt. xiii. 20. Sometimes, like Felix, the man be- 
lieves and trembles. Oftentimes it is at first impossible to dis- 
tinguish this state of mind from genuine saving faith. But 
not springing from a divine work of recreation it has no root 
in the permanent principles of the heart. It is always, there- 
fore, 1st, inefficient, neither purifying the heart nor overcom- 
ing the world ; 2d, temporary. 

16. What is the specific evidence upon ivhich saving faith is 
founded ? 

This is the light let into the soul- by the Holy Ghost in his 
work of spiritual illumination. Thus is the beauty, and excel- 
lence, and the suitableness of the truth to the practical wants 
of the subject apprehended. With this the witness of the Holy 
Ghost with and by the truth co-operates. — 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5 ; Kom. 
viii. 16; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. ii. 8. 

17. How may it be proved from Scripture and experience that 
spiritual illumination is the ground of saving faith ? 

1st. The Scriptures, wherever they come, make a demand 
unconditional, immediate, and universal upon the most intelli- 
gent and the most ignorant alike, that they should be received 
and believed, and unbelief is always charged as sin, and not 
as mere ignorance or mental incapacity. The faith which they 
demand must, therefore, be a moral act, and must depend upon 
the spiritual congeniality of the believer with the truth. 

2d. By nature men are spiritually blind, and subjects of an 
"evil heart of unbelief." — 2 Cor. iii. 14; iv. 4. 



472 FAITH. 

3d. Believers are said to be enlightened, and to discern the 
things of the Spirit. — Acts xiii. 48; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. i. 17, 18; 
1 John ii. 20, 27 ; v. 9, 10. " 

4th. Men believe because they are taught of God. — John vi. 
44, 45. 

5th. Every Christian is conscious of believing, because he 
sees the truth believed to be true, lovely, powerful, and satis- 
lying. 

6th. This is proved by the effects of faith. "We are said to 
live by faith, to be sanctified by faith, to overcome by faith, to 
be saved by faith. Blind consent to authority, or rational con- 
viction, produce no such effects ; if the effects are spiritual, the 
source must be also spiritual." 

18. What are the different opinions as to the relation betiueen 
faith and trust ? 

In consequence of their doctrine of implicit faith, that noth- 
ing is required beyond blind assent to the teachings of the 
church, Komanists necessarily deny that trust enters into the 
essence of saving faith. 

The Sandemanians, as the Campbellites, holding that faith 
is a mere affirmative judgment of the understanding passed 
upon the truth on the ground of evidence, also deny that trust 
is an element of saving faith. 

Some orthodox theologians have held that trust is rather to 
be regarded as an immediate and invariable consequent of sav- 
ing faith, than an element of that faith itself. 

Eeligious faith, resulting from spiritual illumination, respects 
the entire word of God and his testimony, and, as such, is a 
complex state of mind, varying with the nature of the partic- 
ular portion of revealed truth regarded in any particular act. 
Many of the propositions of Scripture are not the proper objects 
of trust, and then the faith which embraces them is only a 
reverent and complacent assent to them as true and good. 
But the specific act of saving faith which unites to Christ, and 
is the commencement, root, and organ of our whole spiritual 
life, terminates upon Christ's person and work as Mediator, 
as presented in the offers and promises of the gospel. This 
assuredly includes trust in its very essence, and this is called 
" saving faith " by way of eminence, since it is the faith that 
saves, and since only through this as their principle, are any 
other more general exercises of saving faith possible. 

19. How may the fact that saving faith includes trust be proved 
from the language of Scripture ? 

The uniform and single condition of salvation presented in 



DOCTRINE PROVED. 473 

the Scriptures is expressed in the words believe in or on Christ, 
£2?s or kni rdv xpitirdv. — John vii. 38 ; Acts ix. 42 ; xvi. 31 ; Gal. 
ii. 16. To believe in or on a person necessarily implies trust 
as well as credit. 

The same is abundantly proved by the usage with respect 
to the phrases "by faith in or on Christ." — 2 Tim. iii. 15; Acts 
xxvi. 18; Gal. iii. 26; Heb. xi. 1. Faith is the substance of 
things hoped for, but the foundation of hope is trust. 

20. How may the same be proved from those expressions which 
are used in Scripture as equivalent to the phrase " believing in 
Christ"? 

"Receiving Christ." — John i. 12; Col. ii. 6. "Looking to 
Christ." — Is. xlv. 22; compare Num. xxi. 9 with John iii. 14, 15. 
" Flying to Christ for refuge." — Heb. vi. 18. " Coming to 
Christ."— John vi. 35; Matt. xi. 28. " Committing."— 2 Tim. 
i. 12. All these illustrate as well as designate the act of saving 
faith, and all equally imply trust as an essential element, for 
we can "receive," or "come to," or "look to," Christ only in 
that character of a propitiation, an advocate and a deliverer, in 
which he offers himself to us. 

21. Hoiv may the same be proved from the effects which the 
Scriptures ascribe to faith ? 

The Scriptures declare that by faith the Christian "embraces 
the promises," "is persuaded of the promises," "out of weak- 
ness is made strong," "waxes valiant in fight," "confesses him- 
self a stranger and pilgrim seeking a better country." As faith 
in a threatening necessarily involves fear, so faith in a promise 
necessarily involves trust. 

Besides, faith rests upon the trustworthiness of God, and 
therefore necessarily involves trust. — Heb. x. 23, and the whole 
of the 11th chapter. 

22. How may it be shown that this vieiv of faith does not con- 
found faith and hope ? 

To our doctrine that saving faith involves trust, the Eo- 
manist objects that this confounds faith and hope, which the 
Scriptures distinguish (1 Cor. xiii. 13), since hope is only strong 
trust. But hope is not merely strong trust. Trust rests upon 
the grounds of assurance, while hope reaches forward to the 
object of which assurance is given. Trust is the foundation of 
hope. Hope is the fruit of trust. The more confiding the 
trust, the more assured the hope. 



474 FAITH. 

23. What are the different opinions as to the relation beticeen 
faith and love, and the Romish distinction between " fides informis" 
and " fides formata " ? 

1st. The Komanists, in order to maintain their doctrine that 
faith alone is not saving, distinguish between a formed, or per- 
fect, and an unformed faith. They acknowledge that faith is 
distinct from love, but maintain that love is essential to render 
faith meritorious and effectual as the instrument of our salva- 
tion. Fides informis is mere assent, explicit or implicit, to the 
teachings of the Church. It necessarily precedes "justificatio" 
as its condition. Fides formata is the fruit of the first justifica- 
tion, and the condition of those good works which merit further 
grace. 

2d. Some have regarded love as the root out of which faith 
springs. 

3d. The true view is that love is the immediate and neces- 
sary effect of faith. Faith includes the spiritual apprehension 
of the beauty and excellence of the truth, and an act of the 
will embracing it and relying upon it. Yet these graces can 
not be analytically separated, since they mutually involve one 
another. There can be no love without faith, nor any faith 
without love. Faith apprehends the loveliness of the object, 
the heart spontaneously loves it. Thus " faith works by love," 
since these affections are the source of those motives that con- 
trol the will. 

The Romish doctrine is inconsistent with the essential prin- 
ciples of the gospel. Faith is not a work, nor can it have, 
when formed or unformed, any merit; it is essentially a self- 
emptying act, which saves by laying hold of the merits of 
Christ. It leads to works, and proves itself by its fruits, but in 
its relation to justification it is in its very nature a strong pro- 
test against the merits of all human works. — Gal. iii. 10, 11; 
Eph. ii. 8, 9. 

The Protestant doctrine that love is the fruit of faith, is 
established by what the Scriptures declare concerning faith, 
that it " sanctifies," " works by love," " overcomes the world." 
Gal. v. 6; Acts xxvi. 18; 1 John v. 4. This is accomplished 
thus — by faith we are united to Christ, Eph. iii. 17, and so 
become partakers of his Spirit, 1 John iii. 24, one of the fruits 
of the Spirit is love, Gal. v. 22, and love is the principle of all 
obedience. — Rom. xiii. 10. 

24. What is the object of saving faith ? 

The spiritual illumination of the understanding and renewal 
of the affections, which lays the foundation for the soul's acting 



MATTERS OF FAITH AND OPINION. 475 

faith in any one portion of the testimony of God, lays the foun- 
dation for its acting faith in all that testimony. The whole 
revealed word of God, then, as far as known to the individual, 
to the exclusion of all traditions, doctrines of men, and pre- 
tended private revelations, is the object of saving faith. That 
particular act of faith, however, which unites to Christ, called, 
by way of distinction, justifying faith, has for its object the 
person and work of Christ as Mediator. — John vii. 38; Acts 
xvi. 31. 

25. What is meant by an article of faith as distinguished from 
a matter of opinion ? 

The Komanists hold that every dogma decided by the church 
to be true, whether derived from Scripture or tradition, is, upon 
pain of damnation, to be believed by every Christian as an 
article of faith, if known to him by an explicit, if not known 
by an implicit faith. On the other hand, with respect to all 
subjects not decided by the church, every man is left free to 
believe or not as a matter of opinion. 

26. What is the Anglican or Puseyite criterion for distinguish- 
ing those doctrines which must be hnown and believed in order to 
salvation ? 

They agree with the Eomanists (see above, Question 6) that 
knowledge is not essential to faith. As to the rule of faith, 
however, they differ. The Komanist makes that rule the teach- 
ing of the Papal Church. The Puseyites, on the other hand, 
make it the uniform testimony of tradition running in the line 
of the succession of apostolic bishops. ■ 

27. What is the common Protestant doctrine as to fundamen- 
tals in religion, and by what evidence can such fundamentals be 
ascertained ? 

Every doctrine taught in the Bible is the object of an en- 
lightened spiritual faith. No revealed principle, however com- 
paratively subordinate, can be regarded as indifferent, to be 
adopted or rejected at will. Every man is bound to credit the 
whole testimony of God. Yet the gospel is a logically con- 
sistent system of truth, some of whose principles are essential 
to its integrity, while others are essential only to its symmetry 
and perfection; and ignorance, feebleness of logical comprehen- 
sion, and prejudice may, and constantly do, lead good men to 
apprehend this system of truth imperfectly. 

A fundamental doctrine, then, is either one which every 
soul must apprehend more or less clearly in order to be saved, 
or one which, when known, is so clearly involved with those 



476 FAITH. 

the knowledge and belief of which is essential to salvation, that 
the one can not be rejected while the other is really believed. 

A fundamental doctrine is ascertained — 1st. In the same 
way that the essential principles of any other system are deter- 
mined, by their bearing upon the system as a whole. 

2d. Every fundamental doctrine is clearly revealed. 

3d. These doctrines are in Scripture itself declared to be 
essential. — John iii. 18 ; Acts xvi. 31 ; 2 Cor. v. 17 ; Gal. ii. 21 ; 
1 John i. 8. 

28. What is the object of" fides specialis," or that specific act of 
faith ichereby ice are justified? 

The person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ as Mediator. 

This is proved — 

1st. The Scriptures expressly declare that we are justified 
by that faith of which Christ is the object. — Bom. iii. 22, 25; 
Gal. ii. 16; Phil. iii. 9. 

2d. We are said to be saved by faith in Christ. — John iii. 
16, 36; Actsx. 43; xvi. 31. 

3d. Justifying faith is designated as a "looking to Christ," 
a "coming to Christ," etc. — John i. 12; vi. 35, 37; Isa. xlv. 22. 

4th. Rejection of Christ; a refusal to submit to the right- 
eousness of God is declared to be the ground of reprobation. 
John viii. 24; iii. 18, 19. 

29. How is the Romish doctrine on this point opposed to the 
Protestant ? 

The Romanists, confounding justification and sanctification, 
hold that faith justifies through the sanctifying power of the 
truth. As all revealed truth has this sanctifying virtue, it fol- 
lows that the whole revelation of God as ascertained by the 
decisions of the church, is the object of justifying faith. This 
is refuted by all we have established from Scripture concerning 
justification, sanctification, and faith. 

30. Is Christ in all his offices, or only as priest, the immediate 
object of justifying faith ? 

In this act the believer appropriates and rests upon Christ 
as Mediator, which includes at once all his functions as such. 
These may be analytically distinguished, but in fact they are 
always inseparably united in him. When he acts as prophet 
he teaches as king and priest. When he reigns he sits as 
prophet and priest upon his throne. Besides this, his prophet- 
ical and kingly work are consciously needed by the awakened 
soul, and are necessarily apprehended as inseparable from his 
priestly work in the one act of faith. 



RELATION OF FAITH AND ASSURANCE. 477 

It is true, however, that as the substitutionary work which 
Christ accomplished as priest is the meritorious ground of our 
salvation, so his priestly character is made the more prominent, 
both in the teachings of Scripture and in the experience of his 
people. 

31. How far is peace of conscience and peace ivith God a neces- 
sary consequence of faith ? 

Peace with God is reconciliation with him. Peace of con- 
science may either mean consciousness of that reconciliation, 
or the appeasement of our own consciences which condemn us. 
Faith in every instance secures our peace with God, since it 
unites us to Christ, Rom. v. 1 ; and in the proportion in which 
faith in the merits of Christ is clear and constant will be our 
consciousness of reconciliation with God, and the satisfaction 
of our own moral sense that righteousness is fulfilled, while we 
are forgiven. Yet as faith may be obscured by sin, so the true 
believer may temporarily fall under his Father's displeasure, 
and lose his sense of forgiveness and his moral satisfaction in 
the perfection of the atonement. 

32. What are tlue three views entertained as to the relation be- 
tween faith and assurance ? 

1st. The Reformers generally maintained that justifying faith 
consisted in appropriating the promise of salvation through 
Christ made in the gospel, i. e., in regarding God as propitious 
to us for Christ's sake. Thus the very act of faith involves 
assurance. 

2d. Some have held that assurance in this life is unattain- 
able. The Romanists, holding that Christian faith is chiefly 
implicit assent and obedient conformity to the teachings of an 
infallible, visible society, called the Church, strenuously denied 
that private individuals have any Scriptural authority to enter- 
tain an assured persuasion that they are specially objects of 
divine favor. They were accustomed to assert that it is neither 
"obligatory," nor "possible," nor " desirable" that any one should 
attain such assurance without a special supernatural revelation. 
See Bellarmin, etc., quoted below. 

3d. The true view is that "although this infallible assurance 
does not belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer 
may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he 
partake of it, yet being enabled by the Spirit to know the 
things which are freely given him by God, he may, without 
extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means 
attain thereunto. And, therefore, it is the duty of each one to 
give diligence to make his calling and election sure." It is 



478 FAITH. 

agreed by all that a true faith can not admit of any doubt as 
to its object. What is believed is assuredly believed. But the 
object of saving faith is Christ and his work as Mediator guar- 
anteed to us in the promises of the gospel on the condition of 
faith. True faith does, therefore, essentially include the assur- 
ance — 1st. That Christ is able to save us. 2d. That he is faith- 
ful and will save us if we believe. It is meant that this is of the 
essence of faith, not that every true believer always enjoys a 
state of mind which excludes all doubt as to Christ's power or 
love; because the spiritual illumination upon which faith rests 
is often imperfect in degree and variable in exercise. Faith 
may be weak, or it may be limited by doubt, or it may alternate 
with doubt. Yet all such doubt is of sin, and is alien to the 
essential nature of faith. But the condition, if ice believe, upon 
which all assurance of our own salvation is suspended, is a 
matter not of revelation, but of experience, not of faith, but of 
consciousness. 

Theologians have, therefore, made a distinction between the 
assurance of faith, Heb. x. 22, and the assurance of hope, Heb. 
vi. 11. The first is of the essence of saving faith, and is the 
assurance that Christ is all that he professes to be, and will do 
all that he promises. The second is the assurance of our own 
personal salvation, is a fruit of faith, and one of the higher 
attainments of the Christian life. 

33. How may it be proved that assurance of our own personal 
salvation is not essential to saving faith? 

1st. From the true object of saving faith as given above. 
2d. From the examples given in the Scriptures of eminent saints 
who doubted with regard to themselves. — 1 Cor. ix. 27. 3d. 
from the exhortations addressed to those who were already 
believers to attain to assurance as a degree of faith beyond 
that which they already enjoyed. 4th. From the experience 
of God's people in all ages. 

34. How may it be proved that assurance is attainable in this 
life? 

1st. This is directly asserted. — Eom. viii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 10; 
1 John ii. 3 ; hi. 14 ; v. 13. 2d. Scriptural examples are given 
of its attainment. — 2 Tim. i. 12; iv. 7, 8. 3d. Many eminent 
Christians have enjoyed an abiding assurance, of the genuine- 
ness of which their holy walk and conversation was an indubi- 
table seal. 

35. On what grounds may a man be assured of his salvation ? 
"It is an infallible assurance of faith, founded, 1st, upon the 



FAITH PRODUCES GOOD WORKS. 479 

divine truth of the promises of salvation ; 2d, the inward evi- 
dence of those graces unto which those promises are made, 
and, 3d, the testimony of the spirit of adoption, Rom. viii. 15, 
16, witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God. 
Which Spirit, Eph. i. 13, 14; 2 Cor. i. 21, 22, is the earnest of 
our inheritance whereby we are sealed to the day of redemp- 
tion." — " Con. of Faith," Chap, xviii. 

This genuine assurance may be distinguished from that 
presumptuous confidence Avhich is a delusion of Satan, chiefly 
by these marks. True assurance, 1st, begets unfeigned hu- 
mility, 1 Cor. xv. 10; Gal. vi. 14; 2d, leads to ever-increasing 
diligence in practical religion, Ps. li. 12, 13, 19; 3d, to candid 
self-examination, and a desire to be searched and corrected by 
God, Ps. cxxxix. 23, 24 ; 4th, to constant aspirations after nearer 
conformity, and more intimate communion with God. — 1 John 
iii. 2, 3. 

36. How may it be shown that a living faith necessarily leads 
to good ivories ? 

1st. From the nature of faith. It is the spiritual apprehen- 
sion and the voluntary embrace of the whole truth of God, — the 
promises, the commands, the threatenings of the Scripture, — 
viewed as true and as good. This faith occasions, of course, 
the exercise of the renewed affections, and love acted out is 
obedience. Each separate truth thus apprehended produces 
its appropriate effect upon the heart, and consequently upon 
the life. 

2d. The testimony of Scripture. — Acts xv. 9 ; xxvi. 18 ; Gal. 
v. 6 ; James ii. 18 ; 1 John v. 4. 

3d. The experience of the universal church. 

AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS. 

St. Augustine. — " Quid est fides nisi credere quod non vides ? " 
Romish Doctrine. — " Gat. Counc. Trent," i. 1. — 1. "We here speak 
of that faith, by force of which we yield our entire assent to whatsoever 
has been divinely delivered, .... by virtue of which we hold that 
as fixed whatsoever the authority of our holy mother the church teaches 
us to have been delivered from God." 

Bellarmin, "Justif." 1, 4. — "(Catholics) teach that historic faith, 
both of miracles and of promises, is one and the same thing, and that 
this one thing is not properly a knowledge or assurance, but a certain 
and most fixed assent, on the authority of the ultimate verity. . . . 
The object of justifying faith, which heretics restrict to the single object 
of special (personal) mercy, Catholics wish to extend as broadly as the 
word of God extends; nay, they contend that the promise of special mercy 
belongs not so much to faith as to presumption. Hence they differ (from 
Protestants) as to the faculty and power of mind which is the seat of faith. 
Inasmuch as they (Protestants) locate faith in the will, they define it to 



480 t FAITH. 

be assurance [fiducia) (or trust), and so confound it with hope, for trust 
(or assurance) is nothing more than strong hope, as holy Thomas teaches. 
Catholics teach that faith has its seat in the intellect. Lastly (they dif- 
fer) as to the act itself of the intellect (in which faith consists). They 
(Protestants), indeed, define faith as a form of knowledge; we (Catholics) 
as assent. For we assent to God, although he proposes things to us to 
be believed which we do not understand. Ch. 7. — In him, who believes, 
there are two things, apprehension, and judgment or assent. But ap- 
prehension is not faith, but something that precedes faith. Besides 
apprehension is not properly called knowledge. For it may happen 
that an unlearned Catholic may only very confusedly apprehend the 
three names (of the Trinity), and nevertheless may truly believe in them. 
But judgment or assent is twofold, the one follows reason and the evi- 
dence of a thing, the other follows the authority of the propounder; the 
first is called knowledge, the latter faith. Therefore the mysteries, of 
faith, which transcend the reason, we believe but do not understand, so 
that faith is distinguished as opposite to science, and is better defined 
as ignorance than as knowledge." 

"Cans. Counc. Trent," Sess. 6, ch. 9. — "For even as no pious person 
ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merits of Christ, and of the 
virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards 
himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and ap- 
prehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a 
certainty of faith, which can not be subject to error, that he has obtained 
the grace of God. " 

Bellarmin, "Justif." 3, 3, says, "The question in debate between 
Romanists and the Reformed w T as, Whether any one should or could, 
without a special revelation, be certain with the certainty of a divine 
faith, to which error can in no way pertain, that his sins are remitted ? " 

The Peotestant Docteine oe Faith and Assueance. 

Calvin's "Institutes" B. 3, ch. 2, $ 7. — "We shall have a complete 
definition of faith, if we say that it is a steady and certain knowledge of 
the divine benevolence towards us, which, being founded on the truth 
of the gratuitous promise in Christ, is both revealed to our minds and 
confirmed to our hearts by the Holy Spirit." 

"Heidelberg Cat." Ques. 21. — "What is true faith ? It is not a mere 
knowledge, by which I firmly assent to all that God has revealed to us 
in his word, but it is also an assured confidence kindled in my heart by 
the Holy Ghost through the gospel, whereby I acquiesce in God, cer- 
tainly knowing, that not to others only, but to me also, remission of 
sins, eternal righteousness and life, is given gratuitously, of the mercy 
of God, on account of the merit of Christ alone." 

"Apol. Augb. Con/.," p. 68. — "But that faith which justifies is not 
merely a knowledge of history; but it is assent to the promise of God in 
which is freely, for Christ's sake, offered the remission of sins and justi- 
fication. . . . This special faith, therefore, whereby each one believes 
that his own sins are remitted to him for Christ's sake, and that God is 
reconciled and propitious through Christ, (is the faith that) attains remis- 
sion of sins, and (that) justifies. " 

"West. Conf. Faith" ch. 18, \ 2. — "This certainly is not a bare con- 
jectural and probable persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope, but an 
infallible assurance of faith, founded on (a) the divine truth of the prom- 
ises, (b) the inward evidence of those graces to which the promises are 
made, and (c) the testimony of the Holy Spirit . . . . g 3.— This infal- 
lible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true 



AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS. 481 

believer may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he par- 
take thereof. . . Yet he may, without extraordinary revelation, in 
the right use of ordinary means attain thereto. And, therefore, it is the 
duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election 
sure." 

Turretin, L. 15, Q. 10. — "The diversity (of expression) which occurs 
between the orthodox has arisen from a different usage of the word 
fiducia (confidence), which may be taken in three senses : 1. For confi- 
dent assent, or persuasion, which arises from the practical judgment of 
the understanding, concerning the truth and goodness of the evangelical 
promises, and concerning the power, willingness, and faithfulness of God 
promising. In which sense 7tsidjuorrj (persuasion), Gal. v. 8, is used syn- 
onymously with it, and nXr/pocpopia (full assurance) is attributed to faith, 
Col. ii. 2, and Heb. x. 22. 2. For the act of fleeing to, and of receiving 
Christ, by which the believer, the truth and goodness of the promises 
being known, flees to Christ, receives and embraces him, and reclines 
alone on his merits. 3. For confidence, satisfaction, and tranquillity of mind, 
which arise from the refuge of the mind to Christ and reception of him. 
For he who firmly reclines on Christ and embraces him, can not fail to 
acquiesce in him securely, and to consider himself to have found and to 
have received that which he sought. In the first and second sense confi- 
dence (fiducia) is of the essence of faith, is rightly said by theologians to 
be its form; because, as afterwards proved against the Papists, it is a con- 
fidential (trusting) apprehension of Christ and of all the benefits offered 
in the word of the gospel. But in the third sense it is by others rightly 
said not to be the form, but the fruit, of faith; because it is born from it, 
but does not constitute it. 



CHAPTER XXXI. 

UNION OF BELIEVERS WITH CHRIST. 

1. To whom are all men united in their natural estate? 

To Adam. Our union with him includes, 1st, his federal 
headship under the covenant of works. — Kom. v. 12-19. 2d. His 
natural headship, as per force of ordinary generation, the 
source of our nature, and of its moral corruptions. — Gen. v. 3 ; 
1 Cor. xv. 49. 

But the law upon which rested the covenant of works, 
whereby we were held in union with Adam, having been slain 
by Christ, "that being dead wherein we were held," we were 
"married to another," that is, to Christ. — Kom. vii. 1-4. 

2. What is the general nature of our union with Christ ? 

It is a single, ineffable, and most intimate union, presenting 
to our view two different aspects, and giving rise to two dif- 
ferent classes of consequents. 

1st. The first aspect of this union is its federal and repre- 
sentative character, whereby Christ, as the second Adam 
(1 Cor. xv. 22), assumes in the covenant of grace those broken 
obligations of the covenant of works which the first Adam 
failed to discharge, and fulfils them all in behalf of all his 
" sheep," "they whom the Father has given him." The conse- 
quences which arise from our union with Christ under this 
aspect of it are such as the imputation of our sins to him, and 
of his righteousness to us, and all of the forensic benefits of 
justification and adoption, etc. — See Chaps. XXXIIL, XXXIY. 

2d. The second aspect of this union is its spiritual and vital 
character, the nature and consequences of which it is our 
business to discuss under the present head. 

3. What is the foundation of this union ? 

(1.) The eternal purpose of the triune God, expressed in the 



ITS ESSENTIAL NATURE. 483 

decree of election (we were chosen in him before the foun- 
dation of the world. — Eph. i. 4), providing for its own fulfil- 
ment in the covenant of grace between the Father as God 
absolute, and the Son as Mediator. — John xvii. 2-6 ; Gal. ii. 20 ; 
(2) in the incarnation of the Son, whereby he assumed fellowship 
with us in community of nature, and became our brother. — Heb. 
ii. 16, 17; and (3) in the mission and official work of the Spirit 
of Christ (1 John iv. 13), through the powerful operation of 
whom in the bodies and souls of his people the last Adam 
is made a quickening spirit (1 Cor. xv. 45), and they are all 
constituted the body of Christ and members in particular. 
1 Cor. xii. 27. 

4. By what analogies drawn from earthly relations is this union 
of believers ivith Christ illustrated in Scripture? 

The technical designation of this union in theological lan- 
guage is "mystical," because it so far transcends all the anal- 
ogies of earthly relationships, in the intimacy of its communion, 
in the transforming power of its influence, and in the excellence 
of its consequences. Yet Holy Scripture illustrates different as- 
pects of this fountain of graces by many apt though partial 
analogies. 

As, 1st, foundation of a building and its superstructure. — 1 
Pet. ii. 4, 6. 2d. Tree and its branches. — John xv. 5. 3d. Head 
and members of the body. — Eph. iv. 15, 16. 4th. Husband and 
wife. — Eph. v. 31, 32; Rev. xix. 7-9. 5th. Adam and his 
descendants, in both their federal and natural relations. — Rom. 
v. 12-19; 1 Cor. xv. 22, 49. 

5. What is the essential nature of this union ? 

On the one hand, this union does not involve any mysterious 
confusion of the person of Christ with the persons of his people ; 
and, on the other hand, it is not such a mere association of 
separate persons as exists in human societies. But it is a union 
which, 1st, determines our legal status on the same basis with 
his. 2d. Which revives and sustains, by the influence of his 
indwelling Spirit, our spiritual life, from the fountain of his 
life, and which transforms our bodies and souls into the like- 
ness of his glorified humanity. 

It is, therefore — 

1st. A spiritual union. Its actuating source and bond is 
the Spirit of the head, who dwells and works in the members. 
1 Cor. vi. 17; xii. 13; 1 John hi. 24; iv. 13. 

2d. A vital union, i. e., our spiritual life is sustained and 
determined in its nature and movement by the life of Christ, 
through the indwelling of his Spirit. — John xiv. 19 ; Gal. ii. 20. 



484 UNION OF BELIEVERS WITH CHRIST. 

3d. It embraces our entire persons, our bodies through our 
spirits. — 1 Cor. vi. 15, 19. 

4th. It is a legal or federal union, so that all of our legal or 
covenant responsibilities rest upon Christ, and all of his legal 
or covenant merits accrue to us. 

5th. It is an indissoluble union. — John x. 28; Rom. viii. 
35, 37; 1 Thess. iv. 14, 17. 

6th. This union is between the believer and the person of 
the God-man in his office as Mediator. Its immediate organ is 
the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us, and through him we are 
virtually united to and commune with the whole Godhead, since 
he is the Spirit of the Father as well as of the Son. — John 
xiv. 23; xvii. 21, 23. 

6. How is this union beticeen Christ and the Christian estab- 
lished ? 

It was established in the purpose and decree of God, and in 
the Covenant of the Father with the Son from eternity. — Eph. 
i. 4; John xvii. 2, 6. Nevertheless, the elect, as to personal 
character and present relations, before their effectual calling by 
the Spirit, are born and continued "by nature children of wrath 
even as others," and " strangers to the covenants of promise." 
Eph. ii. 3, 12. In God's appointed time, with each individual 
of his chosen, this union is established mutually — 1st. By the 
commencement of the effectual and permanent workings of the 
Holy Spirit within them (they are quickened together with 
Christ) ; in the act of the new birth opening the eyes and renew- 
ing the will, and thus laying in their natures the foundation 
of the exercise of saving faith. 2d. Which faith is the second 
bond by which this mutual union is established, by the con- 
tinued actings of which their fellowship with Christ is sus- 
tained, and its blessed consequences developed. — Eph. iii. 17. 
Thus we "come to him," "receive him," "eat of his flesh and 
drink of his blood," etc. 

7. What are the consequences of this union to the believer ? 

1st. They have a community w r ith him in his covenant 
standing, and rights. Forensically they are rendered "com- 
plete in him." His righteousness and his Father is theirs. 
They receive the adoption in him, and are accepted as to both 
their persons and services in the beloved. They are sealed by 
his Holy Spirit of promise; in him obtain an inheritance; sit 
with him on his throne and behold his glory. — Eom. viii. 1; 
Col. ii. 10; Eph. i. 6, 11, 13; Phil. iii. 8, 9. 

As Mediator, Jesus is "the Christ," the anointed one, and the 
believer is the Christian, or receiver of "the unction." — Acts 



THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS. 485 

xi. 26; 1 John ii. 20. His mediatorial office embraces three 
principal functions — (1.) That of prophet, and in fellowship with 
him the believer is a prophet. — John xvi. 13; 1 John ii. 27. 
(2.) That of priest, and the believer also is a priest in him. 
Isa. lxi. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 5; Eev. xx. 6. (3.) That of king, and in 
him the believer is a king. — 1 Pet. ii. 9; Eev. hi. 21; v. 10. 

2d. They have fellowship with him in the transforming, 
assimilating power of his life, making them like him; every 
grace of Jesus reproducing itself in them; "of his fulness we 
have all received, and grace for grace." This holds true, 
(1) with regard to our souls, Rom. viii. 9; Phil. ii. 5; 1 John 
iii. 2 ; (2) with regard to our bodies, causing them to be now 
the temples of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. vi. 17, 19; and his resur- 
rection to be the cause of ours, and his glorified body to be the 
type of ours. — Rom. vi. 5 ; 1 Cor. xv. 47, 49 ; Phil. iii. 21. And 
thus believers are made to bear fruit in Christ, both in their 
bodies and spirits, which are his. — John xv. 5; 2 Cor. xii. 9; 
1 John i. 6. 

3d. This leads to their fellowship with Christ in their expe- 
rience, in their labors, sufferings, temptations, and death. — Gal. 
vi. 17; Phil. iii. 10; Heb. xii. 3; 1 Pet. iv. 13. Thus rendering 
sacred and glorious even our earthly life. 

4th. Also to Christ's rightful fellowship with them in all 
they possess. — Prov. xix. 17 ; Rom. xiv. 8 ; 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20. 

5th. Also to the consequence that, in the spiritual reception 
of the holy sacraments, they do really hold fellowship with 
him. They are "baptized into Christ." — Gal. iii. 27. "The 
bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body 
of Christ; the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the 
communion of the blood of Christ." — 1 Cor. x. 16; xi. 26; John 
vi. 51-56. 

6th. This leads also to the fellowship of believers with one 
another through him, that is, to the communion of saints. 

8. What is tlie nature of that "communion of saints" which 
springs from tJie union of each saint with the Lord? 

See " Confession of Faith," Chapter xxvi. Believers being- 
all united to one head are, of course, through him mutually 
related in the same community of spirit, life, status, and cove- 
nanted privileges with one another. 

This involves upon the part of all believers — 
1st. Reciprocal obligations and offices according to the spe- 
cial grace vouchsafed to each. Like the several organs of the 
body all have part in the same general life, yet each has his 
own individual difference of qualification, and consequently of 



486 UNION OF BELIEVERS WITH CHRIST. 

duty; "for the body is not one member but many." — 1 Cor. xii. 
4-21; Eph. iv. 11-13. 

2d. They have fellowship in each other's gifts and comple- 
mentary graces, each contributing his special loveliness to the 
beauty of the whole.— Eph. iv. 15, 16. 

3d. These reciprocal duties have respect to the bodies and 
temporal interests of the brethren, as well as to those which 
concern the soul. — Gal. ii. 10; 1 John iii. 16-18. 

4th. They have fellowship in faith and doctrine. — Acts ii. 42 ; 
Gal. ii. 9. 

5th. In mutual respect and subordination. — Eom. xii. 10; 
Eph. v. 21; Heb. xiii. 17. 

6th. In mutual love and sympathy. — Eom. xii. 10; 1 Cor. 
xii. 26. 

7th. This fellowship exists unbroken between believers on 
earth and in heaven. There is one " whole family in heaven 
and on earth." — Eph. iii. 15. 

8th. In glory this communion of saints shall be perfected, 
when there is "one fold and one shepherd," when all saints 
shall be one as Father and Son are one. — John x. 16 ; xvii. 22. 



CHAPTER XXXII. 

REPENTANCE, AND THE ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PENANCE. 

1. What are the words used in the original to express this change 
of mind and feeling ? 

1st. /israjueXEtiBaiy from niXouai, to care for; combined with 
juera, to change ones care. This is used only five times in the 
New Testament. 

2d. nzzoLvoziv, from rosea, to perceive, understand, consider; 
combined with jusrd, to change ones mind or purpose. This is 
the verb constantly used in the New Testament to designate 
this change. 

3d. From the same source comes the noun jusrdvoia, repent- 
ance, change of mind or purpose. In the New Testament usage 
of these words the idea of sorrow and contrition is included. 

2. What is saving repentance ? 

See "Con. Faith," Chap. xv. ; " Larger Cat," Q. 76; "Shorter 
Cat," Q. 87. 

It includes — 1st. A sense of personal guilt, pollution, and 
helplessness. 2d. An apprehension of the mercy of God in 
Christ. 3d. Grief and hatred of sin, a resolute turning from 
it unto God, and a persistent endeavor after a new life of holy 
obedience. 

3. Prove that repentance is a grace or gift of God. 

1st. This is evident from the nature of repentance itself. It 
includes, (1) sense of the hatefulness of sin, (2) sense of the 
beauty of holiness, (3) apprehension of the mercy of God in 
Christ. It, therefore, presupposes faith, which is God's gift. 
Gal. v. 22; Eph. ii. 8. 

2d. The Scriptures expressly affirm it — Zech. xii. 10; Acts 
v. 31; xi. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 25. 

4. What is the nature of that sense of sin ivhich is an essential 
element of repentance ? 

That spiritual illumination and renewal of the affections 



488 REPENTANCE—ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PENANCE. 

which is effected in regeneration, brings the believer to see and 
appreciate the holiness of God as revealed alike in the law and 
the gospel, Rom. hi. 20; Job xlii. 6, and in that light to see 
and feel also the exceeding sinfulness of all sin, and the utter 
sinfulness of his own nature just as it is in truth. This sense 
of sin, thus corresponding to the facts of the case, includes, 
1st,, consciousness of guilt, i. e., exposure to righteous punish- 
ment, as opposed to the justice of God. — Ps. li. 4, 9. 2d. Con- 
sciousness of pollution as opposed to the holiness of God, Ps. 
li. 5, 7, 10; and, 3d, consciousness of helplessness. — Ps. li. 11; 
cix. 22. See " Way of Life." 

5. What are the fruits and evidences of this sense of sin ? 

A sense of guilt, especially when coupled with a sense of 
helplessness, will naturally excite apprehension of danger. This 
painful feeling is experienced in infinitely various degrees and 
modifications, as determined by natural temperament, educa- 
tion, and the special dealings of the Holy Spirit. These legal 
fears, however, are common both to false and to true repent- 
ance, and possess no sanctifying influence. 

A sense of pollution leads to shame when we think of God, 
and to self-loathing when we think of ourselves. 

Confession of sin, both in private to God and before men, is 
a natural and indispensable mode in which this sense of sin 
will give genuine expression to itself. — Ps. xxxii. 5, 6; Pro v. 
xxviii. 13; James v. 16; 1 John i. 9. 

The only indubitable test of the genuineness of such a sense 
of sin, however, is an earnest and abiding desire and endeavor 
to be delivered from it. 

6. Show that an apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ is 
essential to repentance. 

1st. The awakened conscience echoes God's law, and can be 
appeased by no less a propitiation than that demanded by di- 
vine justice itself, and until this is realized in a believing ap- 
plication to Christ, either indifference must stupefy, or remorse 
must torment the soul. 

2d. Out of Christ God is a consuming fire, and an inextin- 
guishable dread drives the soul away. — Deut. iv. 24; Heb. xii. 29. 

3d. A sense of the amazing goodness of God to us in the 
gift of his Son, and of our ungrateful requital of it, is necessary 
to excite in the repentant soul the proper shame and sorrow 
for sin as committed against God. — Ps. li. 4. 

4th. This is proved by the teachings and examples furnished 
in Scripture. — Ps. li. 1; cxxx. 4. 



EVIDENCES OF GENUINE REPENTANCE. ^89 

7. What is the nature of that " turning unto God " which con- 
stitutes the essence of genuine repentance ? 

It is a voluntary forsaking of sin as evil and hateful, with 
sincere sorrow, humiliation, and confession; and a returning 
unto God, because he has a right to us, and because he is mer- 
ciful and willing to forgive, together with a determination to 
live, by the help of his grace, in obedience to his commandments. 

8. What are the evidences of genuine repentance ? 

1st. The agreement of our own internal experience with the 
teachings of the word of God on this subject. This is to be de- 
termined by the prayerful study of the Scriptures in connection 
with self-examination. 2d. The permanent effects realized in 
the life. These are the hatred and forsaking of secret as well 
as of open sins, the choice of God's service as both right and 
desirable, public confession, and entire practical consecration. 
"These things must be in us and abound." — 2 Cor. vii. 11. 

9. What are the relations which the ideas represented by the 
terms "faith" "repentance" "regeneration" and "conversion" mu- 
tually sustain to one anotJter ? 

regeneration is the ineffable act of God implanting a new 
nature. The term conversion is used generally to express the 
first exercises of that new nature in ceasing from the old life 
and commencing the new. Faith designates the primary act 
of the new nature, and also that permanent state or habit of 
mind which continues the essential condition of all other graces. 
It is the spiritual apprehension of the truth by the mind, and 
the loyal embrace of the truth by the will, without which there 
can be neither love, hope, peace, joy, nor repentance. The com- 
mon sense attached to the word repentance is very similar to 
that attached to the word conversion, but it differs from it as to 
its usage in two particulars — 1st. Conversion is the more gen- 
eral term, and is used to include the first exercises of faith, as 
well as all those experiences of love, of holiness, and hatred of 
sin, etc., which are consequent upon it. Kepentance is more 
specific, and expresses that hatred and renunciation of sin, and 
that turning unto God, which accompanies faith as its conse- 
quent. 2d. Conversion is generally used to designate only the 
first actings of the new nature at the commencement of a re- 
ligious life, or at most the first steps of a return to God after a 
notable backsliding. — Luke xxii. 32. While repentance is ap- 
plied to that constant bearing of the cross which is one main 
characteristic of the believer's life on earth. — Ps. xix. 12, 13; 
Luke ix. 23; Gal. vi. 14; v. 24 



490 REPENTANCE — ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PENANCE. 

10. What doctrine concerning repentance was taught by many of 
the Reformers ? 

Some of them defined repentance as consisting, 1st, of mor- 
tification, or dying unto sin ; and, 2d, of vivification, or living 
unto God. This corresponds to our view of sanctification. The 
Lutherans make repentance to consist in, 1st, contrition, or sor- 
row for sin; and, 2d, in faith in the gospel, or absolution. — 
"Augsburg Conf.," Art 12. This, although a peculiar phrase- 
ology, is the true view. 

11. What is the Romish doctrine of Penance ? 

In their scheme of salvation the true analogy to the Prot- 
estant doctrine of justification is not to be found in the Komish 
doctrine of justification (so called), but in their doctrine of 
penance. By justification Protestants understand a change 
of relation to the divine law, from condemnation to favor with 
our Judge and King, on the ground of the satisfaction rendered 
by Christ. By "justification " Komanists mean " not remission 
of sin merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the 
inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace and 
of the gifts whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an 
enemy a friend." "For although no one can be just, but he to 
whom the merits of the passion of Christ, of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, are communicated, yet is this done in the said justifica- 
tion of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy 
passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Spirit 
in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein." 
"Cone. Trent," Sess. 6, ch. 7. This is effected by baptism, and 
in all its stages presupposes the satisfaction and merit of Christ. 
His satisfaction atones for all sins committed before baptism, 
and for the eternal punishment of all sins of the baptized. His 
merits secure prevenient grace, baptismal regeneration, and are 
the basis on which the gracious obedience and the temporal 
sufferings of the believer merit forgiveness of sins and continu- 
ance, restoration, and increase of grace, and the rewards of 
heaven. 

Having been thus justified and made friends of God, they 
advance from virtue to virtue, and are renewed from day to 
day through the observance of the commandments of God and 
of the Church, which good works truly merit and receive, as a 
just reward, increase of grace and more and more perfect justi- 
fication (sanctification). The Christian maris first justification, 
effected in baptism, was for Christ's sake without co-operation 
of his own merit, though by co-operation of his own will (if 
adult). His continued and increasing justification (sanctification) 



DOCTRINE OF PENANCE. 491 

is for Christ's sake through and in proportion to his own merit, 
which merit increases in proportion (a) to his holiness, (b) to 
his obedience to moral and ecclesiastical rules. — "Cone. Trent," 
Sess. 6, ch. 10, and can. 32. 

In case of those who have by sin fallen from the received 
grace of "justification," the grace lost is, through the merits of 
Christ, restored by the Sacrament of Penance, provided as a 
second plank, after the shipwreck of grace lost. This penance 
includes (1) sorrow for sin, (2) confession of those sins, (3) sacer- 
dotal absolution, (4) satisfaction rendered (a) in this world by 
fasts, alms, prayers, etc., and (b) after death by the fires of 
purgatory. 

They distinguish penance — 1st. As a virtue, t equivalent to 
the Protestant doctrine of the grace of repentance. 2d. As a 
sacrament. Penance, as a virtue, is internal, or a change of 
mind, including sorrow for sin and turning unto God. External 
penance, or the outward expression of the internal state, is that 
which constitutes the Sacrament of Penance. The matter of this 
sacrament is constituted by the acts of the penitent in the way 
of contrition, of confession, and of satisfaction. Contrition is 
sorrow and detestation of past sins, with a purpose of sinning 
no more. Confession is sell-accusation to a priest having juris- 
diction and the power of the keys. Satisfaction is some painful 
work imposed by the priest, and performed by the penitent to 
satisfy justice for sins committed. These effect (a) the expia- 
tion of the guilt of past sins, and (b) the discipline and in- 
crease of the spiritual life of the soul. The form of the sac- 
rament is the absolution pronounced judicially, and not merely 
declaratively, by the priest. They hold "that it is only by means 
of this sacrament that sins committed after baptism can be for- 
given."— "Cat. Rom.," Part II., Chap. V., Qu. 12 and 13; "Cone. 
Trent," Sess. 6, chs. 14-16; Sess. 14, chs. 1-9; Sess. 6, can. 30. 

12. How may it be proved that it is not a sacrament ? 

1st. It was not instituted by Christ. The Scriptures teach 
nothing concerning it. 2d. It is an essential consequent of the 
false theory of baptismal regeneration. 3d. It does not either 
signify, seal, or convey the benefits of Christ and the new 
covenant. — See below, Chap. XLL, Questions 2-5. 

13. What is their doctrine concerning confession ? 

Confession is self-accusation to a priest having jurisdiction 
and the power of the keys. All sins must be confessed without 
reserve, and in all their details and qualifying circumstances. 
If any mortal sin is not confessed, it is not pardoned, and if 



492 REPENTANCE— ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PENANCE. 

the omission is wilful, it is sacrilege, and greater guilt is in- 
curred.—" Cat. Rom.," Pt. II., Chap. V., Qu. 33, 34 and 42. 

14. What are the Protestant arguments against auricular con- 
fession ? 

1st. It has no warrant in Scripture. The command is to 
"confess one to another." 

2d. It perverts the whole plan of salvation, by making 
necessary the mediation of the priest between the Christian 
and Christ, which has been refuted above, Chap. XXIV., Ques- 
tions 8 and 21. 

3d. We are commanded to confess to God immediately. 
Matt. xi. 28 ; 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; 1 John i. 9. 

4th. The practical results of this system have always been 
evil, and this gross invasion of all the sacred rights of person- 
ality is revolting to every refined soul. 

15. What is the nature of that absolution which the Romish 
priests claim the power to grant ? 

It absolves judicially, not merely declaratively, from all the 
penal consequences of the sins confessed by the authority of 
Jesus Christ. They appeal to Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18; John 
xx. 22, 23. "Cat. Rom.," Part II., Chap. V., Qu. 13 and 17; 
" Council of Trent," Sess. 14, De Poenitentia, can. 9. 

16. What are the arguments against the possession, upon the 
part of the Christian ministry, of such a poiver to absolve ? 

1st. The Christian ministry is not a priesthood. — See above, 
Chap. XXIV., Question 21. 

2d. But even if it were, the conclusion which the Papists 
draw from it would not follow. Absolution is a sovereign, not 
a priestly act. This is plain, from the definition of the priest- 
hood given (Heb. v. 1-6), from the Levitical practice, and from 
the very nature of the act itself. 

3d. The grant of the power of the keys, whatever it was, 
was not made to the ministry as such, for in Matt, xviii. 1-18, 
Christ was addressing the body of the disciples, and the prim- 
itive ministers never either claimed or exercised the power in 
question. 

4th. The power of absolute forgiveness is incommunicable 
in itself, and was not granted as a matter of fact ; the words in 
question will not bear that sense, and were not so understood. 
The practice of the apostles shows that their understanding of 
the words was that they conveyed merely the power of declar- 
ing the conditions on which God would pardon sin, and in 



THE DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES. 493 

accordance with that declaration, of admitting or excluding 
men from sealing ordinances. 

5th. This one false principle makes Christ of none effect, 
and perverts the whole gospel. — " Bib. Kep.," Jan., 1845. 

17. What is the Romish doctrine concerning satisfaction as a 
part of penance? 

By satisfaction is meant such works as are enjoined by the 
priest upon confession, which being set over against the sins 
confessed, for which contrition has been professed, are supposed 
to constitute a compensation for the breach of God's law, and 
in consideration of which the sins are forgiven. — " Cat. Rom.," 
Part II., Chap. V., Qu. 52 and 53. "Council of Trent," Sess. 
XIV., "De Poenitentia," Chs. I-IX. 

18. What are the objections to that doctrine ? 

1st. It is not supported by any Scriptural authority. 2d. It 
does dishonor to the one perfect satisfaction offered by our 
High Priest once for all. — Heb. x. 10-14. 3d. The distinc- 
tion they make between the temporal and eternal punishments 
of sin is unauthorized. The penalty of sin is the judicial wrath 
of God — while that lasts there is no peace. When that is pro- 
pitiated there is no more condemnation (Rom. viii. 1). The 
temporal sufferings of believers in Christ are chastisements, not 
punishments, nor satisfactions. 4th. The pretended " satisfac- 
tions" are either commanded or not. If commanded, they are 
simple duties. Their performance can have no merit. The 
performance of one duty can never "satisfy" for the neglect 
or violation of another. If not commanded, they are a form 
of will-worship which God abhors. — Col. ii. 20-23. 

19. What is the Papal doctrine of Indulgences ? 

The Papal doctrine of Indulgences — 1st. Rests upon the same 
principles with their doctrine of Penance. (1.) The distinction 
between the eternal and the temporal penalties demanded for 
the satisfactions for sins. (2.) The superabundant merit ac- 
quired by and belonging to the Head of the Church and his 
members (Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints), which con- 
stitute a Treasury of Merit, disposable at the discretion of com- 
petent authority to the relief of any repentant believer not in 
mortal sin. (3.) The dispensing power of the church, whereby 
a church officer possessing competent jurisdiction has authority 
to dispense in behalf of God and of the church any or all tem- 
poral satisfactions due from the penitent, either on earth or in 
purgatory, not as yet discharged by him personally. 

2d. These indulgences are to be granted for "reasonable 



494 REPENTANCE— ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PENANCE. 

causes," i. e., "the cause must be pious, that is, not a work 
which is merely temporal, or vain, or in no respect appertain- 
ing to the divine glory, but any work whatsoever which tends 
to the honor of God, or the service of the church." They u do 
not depend for their efficacy on consideration of the work en- 
joined, but on the infinite treasure of the merits of Christ and 
the saints." These "causes" are payments of money for pious 
purposes, special prayers, visit to certain shrines, etc., etc. 

3d. Indulgences are of various kinds. (1.) General for the 
whole church, granted only by the pope himself, to all the faithful 
throughout the world ; or particular, granted by due authority 
to certain persons. (2.) They may be plenary, granting remis- 
sion from all temporal punishments in this world and in purga- 
tory ; or partial, remitting only some part of the penalty due. 
(3.) They may be temporary, for a specified number of days 
or months. (4.) Perpetual, without any limitation of time. (5.) 
Local, attached to certain churches or other places. (6.) Real, 
attached to certain movable things as rosaries, medals, etc. 
(7.) Personal, granted to particular persons, or communities. — 
See M'Clintock and Strong's " Encyclopaedia," and below, the 
" Counc. of Trent," etc. 

AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS. 

"Counc. Trent,'''' Sess. 14, ch. 1. — "But the Lord then principally in- 
stituted the Sacrament of Penance, when being raised from the dead, he 
breathed upon his disciples saying, ' Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose 
sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins ye retain, 
they are retained. ' By which action so signal, and words so clear, the 
consent of all the Fathers has ever understood, that the power of for- 
giving and retaining sins was communicated to the apostles and their 
lawful successors, for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen 
after baptism." 

lb., ch. 3. — "The holy synod doth furthermore teach, (1) that the 
form of the Sacrament of Penance, wherein its force principally con- 
sists, is placed in those words of the minister, 'I absolve thee, etc' 
. . . . But (2) the acts of the penitent himself, to wit, contrition, 
confession, and satisfaction, are as it were the matter of this sacrament, 
which acts, inasmuch as they are, by God's institution, required in the 
penitent for the integrity of the sacrament, and for the full and perfect 
remission of sins, are for this reason called the parts of penance. But 
(3) the thing signified indeed, and the effect of this sacrament, as far as re- 
gards its force and efficacy, is reconciliation with God." 

lb., ch. 4. — "Contrition, which holds the first place amongst the afore- 
said acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin 
committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future. " 

lb., ch. 5. — "All mortal sins of which, after a diligent examination 
of themselves, they are conscious, must needs be by penitents enume- 
rated in confession, even though those sins be most hidden, and com- 
mitted only against the two last precepts of the decalogue. . . Venial 
sins, whereby we are not excluded from the grace of God, and into which 
we fall more frequently, although they be rightly and profitably and with- 



AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS. 495 

out presumption declared in confession, yet they may be omitted without 

guilt, and be expiated by many other remedies Other sins 

(mortal) which do not occur to him (the penitent) after diligent thought, 
are understood to be included as a whole in that same confession ; for 
which sins we confidently say with the prophet. 'From my secret sins 
cleanse me, O Lord.'" 

lb., ch. 6. — "It also teaches, that even priests, who are in mortal sin, 
exercise through the virtue of the Holy Ghost, which God has bestowed 
in ordination, the office of forgiving sins. . . . But although the 
absolution of the priest is the dispensation of another's bounty, yet it 
is not a bare ministry only, or declarative act, but of the nature of a 
judicial act, whereby sentence is pronounced by the priest as by a judge. 
. . Neither would faith without penance bestow any remission of sins; 
nor would he be otherwise than most careless of his own salvation, who 
knowing that a priest but absolved him in jest, should not carefully seek 
for another who would act in earnest. " 

lb., ch. 8. — "Finally, as regards Satisfaction, which as it is, of all the 
parts of Penance, that which has been at all times recommended to 
the Christian people by our Fathers. Ch. 9. — We are able through Jesus 
Christ to make satisfaction to God the Father, not only by pains volun- 
tarily undertaken by ourselves for the punishment of sin, or by those 
imposed at the discretion of the priest according to the measure of our 
delinquency, — but also, which is a very great proof of love, by the tem- 
poral scourges inflicted of God and borne patiently by us. " 

" Counc. Trent," Sess. 6, Can. 29. — "If any one saith, that he, who 
has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again ; 
or that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by 

faith alone without the sacrament of penance Let him 

be accursed. Can. 30. — If any one saith that after the grace of Justifi- 
cation (sanctification) has been received, to every penitent sinner the 
guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in 
such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to 
be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before 
entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); Let him be 
accursed." 

Indulgences.—-" Cone. Trent," Sess. 25, "De Indulgentiis." 

Pope Leo X., ''Bull De Indulgentiis" (1518). — "That no one in future 
may allege ignorance of the doctrine of the Roman Church respecting 
indulgences and their efficacy . . . the Roman pontiff, vicar of Christ 
on earth, can, for reasonable causes, by the powers of the keys, grant to 
the faithful, whether in this life or in Purgatory, indulgences, out of the 
superabundance of the merits of Christ, aud of the saints (expressly 
called a treasure) ; and that those who have truly obtained those indul- 
gences are released from so much of the temporal punishment due for 
their actual sins to the divine justice as is equivalent to the indulgence 
granted and obtained." 



CHAPTER XXXIII. 

JUSTIFICATION. 

1. What is the sense in which the word Siuaios, just, is used in 
the New Testament ? 

Its fundamental idea is that of perfect conformity to all the 
requirements of the moral law. 

1st. Spoken of things or actions. — Matt. xx. 4; Col. iv. 1. 

2d. Spoken of persons (1.) as personally holy, conformed to 
the law in character. — Matt. v. 45; ix. 13. (2.) In respect to 
their possessing eminently some one quality demanded by the 
law. — Matt. i. 19; Luke xxiii. 50. (3.) As forensically just, i. e., 
as conformed to the requirements of the law as the condition 
of the covenant of life. — Rom. i. 17. (4.) Spoken of God in 
respect to his possession of the attribute of distributive justice 
in administering the provisions of the law and the covenants. 
Rom. hi. 26; 1 John i. 9. (5.) Spoken of Christ in respect to 
his character as the only perfect man, and to his representative 
position in satisfying all the demands of the law in behalf of 
his people. — Acts iii. 14; vii. 52; xxii. 14. 

2. What is the usage of the verb Sinaid™, to justify, in the New 
Testament ? 

It means to declare a person to be just. 

1st. Personally conformed to the law as to moral character. 
Luke vii. 29 ; Rom. iii. 4. 

2d. Forensically, that is, that the demands of the law as a 
condition of life are fully satisfied with regard to him. — Acts 
xiii. 39; Rom. v. 1, 9; viii. 30-33; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Gal. ii. 16; 
iii. 11. 

3. How can it be proved that the word Sixaioco is used in a 
forensic sense ivhen the Scriptures use it with reference to the 
justification of sinners under the gospel ? 

1st. In many instances it can bear no other sense. The 
ungodly are said to be justified without the deeds of the law, 



NEW TESTAMENT USAGE. 497 

by the blood of Christ, by faith, freely, and of grace, through 
the agency of an advocate, by means of a satisfaction and of 
imputed righteousness. — Rom. iii. 20-28; iv. 5-7; v. 1; Gal. 
ii. 16; iii. 11; v. 4; 1 John ii. 2. 

2d. It is used "as the contrary of condemnation. — Rom. 
viii. 33, 34. 

3d. The same idea is conveyed in many equivalent and 
interchangeable expressions. — John iii. 18; v. 24; Rom. iv. 6, 7; 
2 Cor. v. 19. 

4th. If it does not bear this meaning, there is no distinction 
between justification and sanctification. — Turretin, L. XVI., 
Quaestio 1. 

4. What is the usage of the term 8ik<xio6vv7}, righteousness, and 
of the phrase " righteousness of God" in the New Testament? 

The term "just" is concrete, designating the person who is 
perfectly conformed to the law, or in respect to whom all the 
demands of the law are completely satisfied. The term "right- 
eousness," on the other hand, is abstract, designating that quality 
or that obedience or suffering which satisfies the demands of 
the law, and which constitutes the ground upon which justifi- 
cation proceeds. 

Consequently, it sometimes signifies, 1st, holiness of charac- 
ter, Matt. v. 6 ; Rom. vi. 13 ; 2d, that perfect conformity to the 
law in person and life which was the original ground of justifi- 
cation under the covenant of works, Rom. x. 3, 5 ; Phil. iii. 9 ; 
Titus iii. 5 ; 3d, the vicarious obedience and sufferings of Christ 
our substitute, which he wrought in our behalf, and which, 
when imputed to us, becomes our righteousness, or the ground 
of our justification, Rom. iv. 6; x. 4; 1 Cor. i. 30; which is re- 
ceived and appropriated by us through faith, Rom. iii. 22 ; iv. 
11; x. 5-10; Gal. ii. 21; Heb. xi. 7. 

The phrase, "righteousness of God," occurs in Matt. vi. 33; 
Rom. i. 17; iii. 5, 21, 22, 25, 26; x. 3; 2 Cor. v. 21; Phil. iii. 9; 
James i. 20; 2 Pet. i. 1. It evidently means that perfect right- 
eousness or satisfaction to the whole law, precept, and penalty 
alike, which God provides, and which God will accept, in con- 
trast to our own imperfect services or self-inflicted penances, 
which God will reject, if offered as a ground of justification. 

5. What is the usage of the term 81x0.10061$, justification, in the 
Neiv Testament? 

It occurs only in Rom. iv. 25; v. 16, 18. It signifies that 
relation to the law into which we are brought in consequence 
of the righteousness of Christ being made legally ours. We 



498 JUSTIFICATION. 

are absolved from all liability to the penalty, and the rewards 
promised to obedience are declared to belong to us. 

6. Define justification in its gospel sense. 

God, as sovereign, elected his chosen people, and gave them 
to his Son in the covenant of grace, and as sovereign he exe- 
cutes that covenant when he makes the righteousness of Christ 
theirs by imputation. Justification, on the other hand, is a 
judicial act of God proceeding upon that sovereign imputa- 
tion, declaring the law to be perfectly satisfied in respect to us. 
This involves, 1st, pardon; 2d, restoration to divine favor, as 
those with regard to whom all the promises conditioned upon 
obedience to the commands of the law accrue. It is most 
strictly legal, although he sovereignly admits and credits to us 
a vicarious righteousness, since this vicarious righteousness is 
precisely in all respects what the law demands, and that by 
which the law is fulfilled. — See below, Question 28. 

7. What does the law require in order to the justification of a 
sinner ? 

The law consists essentially of a rule of duty, and of a 
penalty attached to take effect in case of disobedience. In 
the case of the sinner, therefore, who has already incurred 
guilt, the law demands that, besides the rendering of per- 
fect obedience, the penalty also should be suffered. — Rom. x. 5 ; 
Gal. iii. 10-13. 

8. Prove that works can not be the ground of a sinner's jus- 
tification. 

Paul repeatedly asserts this (Gal. ii. 16), and declares that 
we are not justified by our own righteousness, which comes by 
obedience to the law. — Phil. iii. 9. He also proves the same 
by several arguments — 

1st. The law demands perfect obedience. All works not 
perfect, therefore, lead to condemnation, and no act of obedi- 
ence at one time can atone for disobedience at another. — Gal. 
iii. 10, 21 ; v. 3. 

2d. If we are justified by works, then Christ is dead in vain. 
Gal. ii. 21 ;> v. 4. 

3d. If it were of works it would not be of grace. — Eom. 
xi. 6; Eph. ii. 8, 9. 

4th. It would afford cause for boasting. — Rom. iii. 27 ; iv. 2. 

5th. He also quotes the Old Testament to prove that all men 
are sinners, Rom. iii. 9, 10; that consequently they can not be 
justified by works. — Ps. cxliii. 2; Rom. iii. 20. He quotes 



NOT FOUNDED ON WORKS. 499 

Hab. ii. 4, to prove that "the just by faith shall live"; and he 
cites the example of Abraham — Gal. iii. 6. 

9. What are the different opinions as to the kind of ivories which 
the Scriptures teach are not sufficient for justification? 

The Pelagians admit that works of obedience to the cere- 
monial law are of this nature, but affirm that works of obedi- 
ence to the moral law are the proper and only ground of justi- 
fication. The Eomanists admit that works wrought in the 
natural strength, previous to regeneration, are destitute of 
merit, and unavailable for justification, but they maintain that 
original sin and previous actual transgressions having been 
forgiven in baptism for Christ's sake, good works afterwards 
performed through grace have, in consequence of the merits of 
Christ, the virtue, 1st, of meriting heaven ; 2d, of making satis- 
faction for sins. We are justified, then, by evangelical obedi- 
ence. — " Cat. Rom.," Part II., Chapter v. ; " Council of Trent," 
Sess. VI., Can. xxiv., and xxxii. Protestants deny the justi- 
fying efficiency of all classes of works equally. 

10. How may it be shown that no class of works, whether cere- 
monial, moral, or spiritual, can justify ? 

1st. When the Scriptures deny that justification can be by 
works, the term " works " is always used generally as obedience 
to the whole revealed will of God, however made known. 
Works of obedience rendered to one law, as a ground of justi- 
fication, are never contrasted with works wrought in obedience 
to another law, but with grace. — Rom. xi. 6; iv. 4. God 
demands perfect obedience to his whole will as revealed to any 
individual man. But since every man is a sinner, justification 
by the law is equally impossible for all. — Rom. ii. 14, 15; 
iii. 9, 10. 

2d. The believer is justified without the deeds of the law, 
Rom. iii. 28, and God justifies the ungodly in Christ, — Rom. iv. 5. 

3d. Justification is asserted to rest altogether upon a differ- 
ent foundation. It is "in the name of Christ," 1 Cor. vi. 11; 
"by his blood," Rom. v. 9; "freely," "by his grace," "by faith." 
Rom. iii. 24, 28. 

4th. Paul proves that instead of our being justified by good 
works, such works are rendered possible to us only in that new 
relation to God into which we are introduced by justification. 
Eph. ii. 8-10; Rom. 6th and 7th chapters. 

11. Hoiv can James ii. 14-26, be reconciled with this doctrine ? 

James is not speaking of the meritorious ground of justifi- 
cation, but of the relation which good works sustain to a gen- 



500 JUSTIFICATION. 

nine faith as its fruit and evidence. The meritorious ground 
of justification is the righteousness of Christ, — Kom. x. 4; 1 
Cor. i. 30. Faith is the essential prerequisite and instrument 
of receiving that righteousness. — Eph. ii. 8. James, in the 
passage cited, simply declares and argues the truth that the 
faith which is thus the instrumental cause of justification, is 
never a dead, but always a living and fruitful principle. Paul 
teaches the same truth often, "Faith works by love," Gal. 
v. 6, and " love is the fulfilling of the law," Kom. xiii. 10. 

12. What do the Scriptures declare to be the true and only 

ground of justification ? 

Justification is a declaration on the part of the infinitely 
wise and holy God that the law is satisfied. The law is, like 
its Author, absolutely unchangeable, and can be satisfied by 
nothing else than an absolutely perfect righteousness, at once 
fulfilling the precept, and suffering the penalty. This was 
rendered by Christ as our representative, and his perfect right- 
eousness, as imputed to us, is the sole and strictly legal ground 
of our justification. Thus he is made for us the end of the law 
for righteousness, and we are made the righteousness of God 
in him. — Rom. hi. 24; v. 9, 19; viii. 1; x. 4; 1 Cor. i. 30; vi. 11; 
2 Cor. v. 21; Phil. iii. 9. 

13. Hoiv can it be proved that Christ's active obedience to the 
precepts of the law is included in that righteousness by which we 
are justified? 

1st. The condition of the covenant of works was perfect 
obedience. This covenant having failed in the hands of the 
first Adam must be fulfilled in the hands of the second Adam, 
since in the covenant of grace Christ assumed all of the undis- 
charged obligations of his people under the covenant of works. 
His suffering discharges the penalty, but only his active obe- 
dience fulfills the condition. 

2d. All the promises of salvation are attached to obedience, 
not to suffering. — Matt. xix. 16, 17; Gal. iii. 12. 

3d. Christ came to fulfil the whole law. — Is. xlii. 21 ; Rom. 
iii. 31; 1 Cor. i. 30. 

4th. The obedience of Christ is expressly contrasted with 
the disobedience of Adam. — Rom. v. 19. 



14. How may it be shown that Christ's obedience was free ? 

Although Christ was made under the law by being born of 
the woman, and rendered obedience to that law in the exercises 
of his created human nature, yet he did not owe that obedience 



IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS. 501 

for himself, but rendered it freely that its merits might be im- 
puted to his people, because the claims of law terminate not 
upon nature, but upon persons; and he was always a divine 
person. As he suffered, the just for the unjust, so he obeyed, 
the Lawgiver in the place of the law-subject. 

15. In what sense is Christ's righteousness imputed to believers? 

Imputation is an act of God as sovereign judge, at once ju- 
dicial and sovereign, whereby (1) he makes the guilt and legal 
responsibilities of our sins really Christ's, and punishes him for 
them. " He was wounded for our transgression, the punishment 
of our peace was upon him." — Is. liii. 5 and 11. "Christ hath 
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse 
for us." — Gal. iii. 13. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, 
who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness 
of God in him."— 2 Cor. v. 21; John i. 29. (2.) He makes the 
righteousness of Christ ours (that is, the legal right to reward, 
by the gracious covenant conditioned on righteousness), and 
then treats us as persons legally invested with those rights. 
" Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man to 
whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works." — Rom. 
iv. 6. " For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to 
every one that believeth." — Rom. x. 4; 1 Cor. i. 30; 2 Cor. v. 21; 
Phil. iii. 9. 

" Imputation " is the charging or crediting to one's account 
as the ground of judicial treatment. 

" Guilt " is the just obligation to punishment. The reatus 
pcence, or " guilt of punishment," is imputed to Christ in our 
stead. The reatus culpce, or guilt of fault, remains ours. 

"Righteousness imputed" is the vicarious fulfillment of all 
the covenant demands on which eternal life is conditioned. 

" Merit " is that which deserves on the ground of covenant 
promise a reward. The merit of reward is imputed to us from 
Christ, the merit of praiseworthiness remains his forever. 

As Christ is not made a sinner by the imputation to him of 
our sins, so we are not made holy by the imputation to us of 
his righteousness. The transfer is only of guilt from us to him, 
and of merit from him to us. He justly suffered the punish- 
ment due to our sins, and we justly receive the rewards due to 
his righteousness. — 1 John i. 9. For explanation of " Imputa- 
tion," see above, Chap. XXL, Ques. 12, and Chap. XXV., Ques. 9. 

16. Upon what ground does this imputation proceed? && 

Upon the union federal, spiritual, and vital, which subsists 
between Christ and his people. Which union, in turn, rests 
upon the eternal decree of election common to all the persons 



502 JUSTIFICATION. 

of the Godhead, and upon the eternal covenant of grace formed 
between the Father as God absolute and the Son as Mediator. 
Thus the ultimate ground of imputation is the eternal nature 
and imperial will of God, the fountain of all law and all right. 

17. How may the fact of this imputation be proved from 
Scripture ? 

See Eom. v. 12-21. Compare Rom. iv. 6; iii. 21, with 
Rom. v. 19. 

The doctrine of imputation is essentially involved in the 
doctrine of substitution. If Christ obeyed and suffered in our 
place it can only be because our sins were imputed to him, 
which is directly asserted in Scripture, Isa. liii. 6 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; 
1 Pet. ii. 24; and, if so, the merit of that obedience and suffer- 
ing must accrue to us, Matt. xx. 28; 1 Tim. ii. 6; 1 Pet. iii. 18. 
See above, Chapter XXL, Question 12. 

This doctrine is also taught by those passages which affirm 
that Christ fulfilled the law, Rom. iii. 31; x. 4; and by those 
which assert that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, 
1 Cor. vi. 11; Rom. viii. 1, etc. 

This doctrine, moreover, stands or falls with the whole view 
we have presented of the priesthood of Christ, of the justice of 
God, of the covenants of works and of grace, and of the nature 
of the atonement; to which subjects, under their respective 
heads, the reader is referred. 

18. What are the two effects ascribed to the imputation of 
Christ's righteousness ? 

Christ's righteousness satisfies, 1st, the penalty of the law; 
2d, then the positive conditions of the covenant of works, i. e., 
obedience to the precepts of the law. The imputation of that 
righteousness to the believer, therefore, secures, 1st, the remis- 
sion of the penalty, pardon of sins; 2d, the recognition and 
treatment of the believer as one with respect to whom the 
covenant is fulfilled, and to whom all its promises and advan- 
tages legally accrue. — See below, Question 28. 

19. Are the sins of believers, committed subsequently to their 
justification, included in the pardon which is consequent to the im- 
putation of Christ's righteousness; and, if so, in what icay ? 

The elect, although embraced in the purpose of God, and in 
his covenant with his Son from eternity, are not effectively 
united to Christ until the time of their regeneration, when, in 
consequence of their union with him, and the imputation of his 
righteousness to them, their relation to the law is permanently 
changed. Although the immutable law always continues their 



RELATION OF FAITH TO JUSTIFICATION. 503 

perfect standard of experience and of action, it is no longer to 
them a condition of the covenant of life, because that covenant 
has been fully discharged for them by their sponsor. God no 
longer imputes sin to them to the end of judicial punishment. 
Every suffering which they henceforth endure is of the nature 
of chastisement, designed for their correction and improve- 
ment, and forms, in its relation to them, no part of the penalty 
of the law. 

20. What are the different opinions as to the class of sins which 
are forgiven ivhen the sinner is justified? 

Romanists teach that original sin and all actual transgres- 
sions prior to baptism are forgiven for Christ's sake, through 
the reception of that sacrament, and that after baptism, sins, 
as they are committed, are through the merits of Christ for- 
given in the observance of the sacrament of penance. See 
above, Chapter XXXIL, Question 11. 

Dr. Pusey has revived an ancient doctrine that in baptism 
all past sins, original and actual, are forgiven ; but his system 
makes no provision for sins subsequently committed. 

Many Protestants have held that only past and present sins 
are forgiven in the first act of justification, and that sins after 
regeneration, as they occur, are forgiven upon renewed acts of 
faith. 

The true view, however, is, that in consequence of the 
imputation to him of Christ's righteousness, the believer is 
emancipated from his former federal relation to the law, and 
consequently henceforth no sin is charged to him to the end of 
judicial condemnation. This follows from the nature of justifi- 
cation, as stated above, and it is illustrated by the recorded 
experience of Paul, who, while complaining of the law of sin, 
still warring in his members, yet never doubted of his filial 
relation to God, nor of the forgiveness of his sins. 

21. What are the different opinions as to the relation between 
faith and justification? 

Socinians hold that faith, including obedience, is the proper 
meritorious ground of justification. — " Cat. Rac," Quest. 418-421, 
and 453. 

Arminians teach that although faith has no merit in itself, 
since it is the gift of God, yet, as a living principle, including 
evangelical obedience, it is graciously, for Christ's merits' sake, 
imputed to us for righteousness, L e., accepted as righteousness, 
upon the ground of which we are declared just. — Limborch, 
"Theol. Christ.," 6, 4, 22, and 6, 4, 46. 

The orthodox view is that the active and passive obedience 



504 JUSTIFICATION. 

of Christ satisfying both the precept and penalty of the law as 
a covenant of life, and thus constituting a perfect righteousness, 
is, upon being appropriated by the believer in the act of faith, 
actually made his, in a legal sense, by imputation. Faith, there- 
fore, is the mere instrument whereby we partake in the right- 
eousness of Christ, which is the true ground of our justification. 

22. Prove from Scripture that faith is only the instrumental 
cause of justification. 

1st. From the nature of faith itself. (1.) It is not of our- 
selves, it is the gift of God.— Eph. ii. 8; Phil. i. 29. (2.) It is 
one of the fruits of the Spirit, and, therefore, not the meritorious 
ground of spiritual blessings. — Gal. v. 22. (3.) It is an act of 
the soul, and therefore a work, but though, by means of faith, 
justification is not by works. — Rom. iv. 2-5; xi. 6. (4.) Justi- 
fying faith terminates on or in Christ, in his blood and sacrifice, 
and in the promises of God; in its very essence, therefore, it 
involves trust, and, denying its own justifying value, affirms 
the sole merit of that on which it trusts. — Rom. hi. 25, 26 ; iv. 
20, 22; Gal. iii. 26; Eph. i. 12, 13; 1 John v. 10. (5.) The law 
necessarily demands a perfect righteousness, but faith, even 
when combined with the evangelical obedience which springs 
from it, is not a perfect righteousness. 

2d. The Scriptures, when referring to the relation of justifi- 
cation to faith, use the terms ex 7ti6zeco<i, by faith, and Sid 7tidre<*)S, 
by or through faith, but never Sid Tti6nv, on account of faith, 
Gal. ii. 16. 

3d. Faith is distinguished from the righteousness which it 
apprehends. — Rom i. 17; Phil. iii. 8-11. Turretin, L. 16, Q. 7. 

23. What is the specific object of justifying faith ? 

The Socinians, denying the divinity of Christ, make the act 
of justifying faith to terminate "in God through Christ." — "Rac. 
Cat.," Sec. 5., Ch. 9. 

The Romanists, confounding justification and sanctification, 
make the whole revelation of God the object of the faith that 
justifies.— "Cat. Rom." Part 1, Chap. 1. 

The Scriptural doctrine is, that while the renewed heart 
believes equally every ascertained word of God, the specific act 
of faith, whereby we are justified, terminates upon the person 
and work of Christ as Mediator. 

This is proved, 1st, from express declarations of Scripture. 
Rom. iii. 22, 25; Gal. ii. 16; Phil. iii. 9. 2d. By the declara- 
tion that we are saved by believing in him. — Acts x. 43; 
xvi. 31 ; John iii. 16, 36. 3d. By those figurative expressions 
which illustrate the act of saving faith as "looking to Christ," 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 505 

etc.— Is. xlv. 22 : John i. 12 ; vi. 35, 37 ; Matt. xi. 28. 4th. Unbe- 
lief is the refusing the righteousness which God provides, i. e., 
Christ. — Rom. x. 3, 4. 

24. What is the nature of that peace which floius from justifi- 
cation ? 

1st. Peace with God, his justice being completely satisfied 
through the righteousness of Christ. — Rom. v. 1; 2 Cor. v. 19; 
Col. i. 21 ; Eph. ii. 14. In witness whereof his Holy Spirit is 
given to us. — Rom. viii. 15, 16 ; Heb. x. 15, 17. His love shed 
abroad in our hearts, Rom. v. 5, and our habitual fellowship 
with him established, 1 John i. 3. 2d. Inward peace of con- 
science, including consciousness of our reconciliation with God 
through the operation of his Spirit, as above, and the appease- 
ment of our self-condemning conscience through the apprehen- 
sion of the righteousness by which we are justified. — Heb. ix. 14; 
x. 2, 22. 

25. What other benefits flow from justification ? 

Being justified on the ground of a perfect righteousness, our 
whole relation to God and the law is changed; the gift of the 
Holy Ghost, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, the working 
of all things together for good in this life, deliverance in death, 
the resurrection of the body, and the final glorification, all 
result. 

Objections Answered. 

26. State and Refute the principal objections made to the 
Protestant doctrine of justification. 

1st. That it is legal, and therefore excludes grace. 

We answer — that it is transcendently gracious. 1. The 
admission of a substitute for guilty sinners was an act of grace. 
2. The vicarious obedience and sufferings of the God-man were 
of infinite grace. 3. The imputation of his righteousness to an 
individual elected out of the mass of fallen humanity is an act 
of pure grace. Hence, 4, the entire subsequent regarding and 
treating the believer as righteous, is a work of grace. 

2d. That it is impious because it declares the sinner to be 
righteous with the very righteousness of Christ. 

We answer. It is not impious because — 1. This righteous- 
ness was freely wrought out with the intention it should be 
ours, and it is freely given to us. 2. It is not Christ's per- 
sonal subjective righteousness which is incommunicable, but 
his vicarious fulfillment of the covenant of life under which we 
were created which is imputed to us. 3. The merit of praise- 



506 JUSTIFICATION. ' 

worthiness is retained by Christ, only its merit of rewardable- 
ness is given to us. 4. It is given to us gratuitously, that 
the praise of glorious grace may redound to Christ alone. 

3d. That gratuitous justification by faith leads to licen- 
tiousness. 

Paul answers, Rom. vi. 2-7: 

Prop. 1st. Where sin abounded grace did much more abound. 
Rom. v. 20. 

Prop. 2d. Shall we conclude, therefore, that we are to con- 
tinue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. — Rom. vi. 1, 2. 

Prop. 3d. The federal union of the believer with Christ, which 
secures our justification, is the foundation of, and is insepara- 
ble from, that vital spiritual union with him, which secures our 
sanctification. 

Prop. 4th. This method of justification, so far from leading 
to licentiousness, secures the only conditions under which we 
could be holy. (1.) This method of justification, by changing 
our relation to God, enables us to return to him in a way of a 
free, loving service. — Rom. vi. 14; vii. 1-6. (2.) It alone de- 
livers us from the spirit of bondage and fear, and gives us that 
of adoption and love. — Rom. viii. 1-17; xiii. 10; Gal. v. 6; 1 John 
iv. 18 ; 2 John 6. 

27. In ivhat respect did the doctrine of Piscator on this subject 
differ from that of the Reformed Churches ? 

Piscator, a Protestant divine, Prof, at Herborn (1584^-1625), 
taught, 1st, that, as to his human nature, Christ was under the 
law in the same sense as any other creature, and that, therefore, 
he could only obey the law for himself; 2d, that if Christ had 
obeyed the law in our place, the law could not claim a second 
fulfillment of us, and, consequently, Christians would be under 
no obligations to obey the law of God; 3d, that if Christ had 
both obeyed the precept of the law and suffered its penalty, 
then the law would have been doubly fulfilled, since the claims 
of the precept and the penalty of the law are alternative, not 
coincident. 

This doctrine was expressly condemned in the Reformed 
Churches of Switzerland and Holland, and by the French 
synods held in the years 1603, 1612, and 1614. In 1615, how- 
ever, the Synod tacitly allowed these views to pass without 
condemnation. — Mosheim's " Hist." 

28. Hoiv may it be shown that justification is not mere pardon? 

Piscator erred, from failing to distinguish — 1st. That the 
claims of law terminate not upon natures, but upon persons. 
Christ was a divine person, and, therefore, his obedience was 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 507 

free. 2d. That there is an evident difference between a federal 
relation to the law as a condition of salvation, and a natural 
relation to law as a rule of life. Christ discharged the former 
as our federal representative. The latter necessarily attaches 
to the believer as to all moral agents forever. 

Justification is more than pardon — 1st. Because the very 
word "to justify" proves it. To "pardon" is, in the exercise of 
sovereign prerogative, to waive the execution of the penal sanc- 
tions of the law. "To justify " is to declare that the demands 
of the law are satisfied, not waived. Pardon is a sovereign act 
— justification is a judicial act. 2d. As we proved under Chap. 
XXV., Christ did in strict rigor of justice satisfy vicariously for us 
the demands of the law, both the obedience demanded and the 
penalty denounced. His satisfaction is the ground of our justi- 
cation. But pardon is remission of penalty in absence of satis- 
faction. 3d. If justification were mere pardon it would simply 
release us from penal suffering, but would provide no further 
good for us. But "justification through faith in Christ," se- 
cures not pardon only, but also peace, grace, reconciliation, 
adoption of sons, coheirship, etc., etc. — See above, Ques. 13. 
Eom. v. 1-10 ; Acts xxvi. 18 ; Rev. i. 5, 6. 

In the case of justified believers "justification" includes "par- 
don." Our justification proceeds on the ground of a "satisfac- 
tion," and, therefore, is not mere pardon. But it is a "vicari- 
ous " satisfaction graciously set to the credit of the unworthy, 
and, therefore, it effects pardon to us sinners who believe in 
Christ. 

29. Did not Calvin often use language- to the effect that justifica- 
tion and pardon are the same ? 

He did. But his language is to be interpreted — 1st. By the 
fact that he was arguing with Romanists who taught that "jus- 
tification consists in remission of sins and infusion of grace." 
He argued in opposition that justification consists in the former 
but does not include the latter. 2d. By the conclusive fact 
that his full definitions of justification comprehend the full 
truth more accurately defined in the Symbols of the Lutheran 
and Reformed Churches. 

Calvin's "Institutes," Bk. 3, ch. 11, \ 2. — "A man is said to be justi- 
fied in the sight of God, when in the judgment of God he is decreed 
righteous, and is accepted on account of his righteousness. ... In 
the same manner a man will be said to he justified by icorks, if in his life, 
or by the perfection of his works, he can answer and satisfy the divine 
justice. On the coDtrary a man will be justified by faith, when excluded 
from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteous- 
ness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as sinner, 



508 JUSTIFICA TION. 

but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the accept- 
ance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous, 
and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins, and 
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. " 

Calvin's "Com." 1 Cor. i. 30. — "'Christ is made unto us righteous- 
ness,' by which, he (the apostle) understood that we are accepted by God 
in his name (Christ's), because he expiated our sins, and his obedience is 
imputed to us for righteousness. For since the righteousness of faith 
consists in remission of sins, and in gratuitous acceptance, we obtain 
both through Christ." 

30. In what respect does the governmental theory of the atone- 
ment modify the doctrine of justification? 

See above, Chap. XXV., Question 27. 

1st. It follows, from that theory, that justification is a sov- 
ereign, not a judicial act of God. Christ has not satisfied the 
law, but merely made it consistent with the government of 
God to set aside the law in the case of believing men. It is 
mere pardon, an act of executive clemency. 

2d. As Christ did not die as a substitute, it follows that his 
righteousness is not imputed; it is the occasion, not the ground 
of justification. 

3d. As Christ did not die as a substitute, there is no strictly 
federal union between Christ and his people, and faith can not 
be the instrument of salvation by being the means of uniting 
us to Christ, but only the arbitrary condition of justification, or 
the means of recommending us to God. 

4th. As justification is mere pardon, it only sets aside con- 
demnation, and renders, so far forth, future salvation possible. 
It does nothing to secure the future standing and relations of 
the believer, under the covenant of salvation, to God. 

Dr. Emmons (1745-1840), one of the ablest theologians of 
the New England School, says ("Sermons," Vol. III., p. 3-67) — 
(1.) "Justification, in a gospel sense, signifies no more nor less 
than pardon or remission of sin." (2.) "Forgiveness is the 
only favor which God bestows upon men on Christ's account." 
(3.) "The full and final justification of believers, or their title 
to their eternal inheritance, is conditional. They must perform 
certain things, which he has specified as terms or conditions of 
their taking possession of their several legacies." (4.) "God 
does promise eternal life to all who obey his commands or 
exercise those holy and benevolent affections which his com- 
mands require." 

31. How does the Arminian theory as to the nature and design 
of the satisfaction of Christ modify the doctrine of justification ? 

They hold — 1st. As to the nature of Christ's satisfaction, 



THE ARMINIAN, AND THE ROMISH DOCTRINE. 509 

that although it was a real propitiation rendered to justice 
for us, it was not in the rigor of justice perfect, but was gra- 
ciously accepted and acted on as such by God. — Limborch, 
"Apol. Theo.," 3, 22, 5. 2d. That it was not strictly the sub- 
stitution of Christ in place of his elect, but rather that he suf- 
fered the wrath of God in behalf of all men, in order to make 
it consistent with justice for God to offer salvation to all men 
upon condition of faith. 

Therefore they regard justification as a sovereign, not a 
judicial act — 1st. In accepting the sufferings of Christ as suf- 
ficient to enable God consistently to offer to men salvation on 
the terms of the new covenant of grace, i. e., on the condition 
of faith. 2d. In imputing to the believer his faith for right- 
eousness for Christ's sake. 

This faith they make — 1st. To include evangelical obedi- 
ence, i. e., the whole principle of religion in heart and life. 
2d. They regard it as the graciously admitted ground, rather 
than the mere instrument of justification ; faith being counted 
for righteousness, because Christ died. — Limborch, "Theo. 
Christ.," 6, 4, 22, and 6, 4, 46. 

This theory, besides being opposed by all the arguments 
we have above presented in establishing the orthodox doctrine, 
labors under the further objections — 

1st. It fails to render a clear account as to how the satis- 
faction of Christ makes it consistent Avith divine justice to save 
men upon the condition of faith. If Christ did not obey and 
suffer strictly as the substitute of his people, it is difficult to 
see how the justice of God, as it respects them, could have 
been appeased ; and if he did so fulfil the demands of justice 
in their place, then the orthodox view, as above stated, is 
admitted. 

2d. It fails to render a clear account of the relation of faith 
to justification — (1.) Because faith in Christ, including trust, 
necessarily implies that the merits of Christ upon which the 
trust terminates is the ground of justification. (2.) Faith must 
be either the ground or the mere instrument of justification. 
If it be the latter then the righteousness of Christ, which is 
the object of faith, is that ground. If it be the former, then 
what is made of the merits of Christ upon which faith rests? 

32. How do the Romanists define justification? 

They confound justification with sanctification. It is, 1st, 
the forgiveness of sins; 2d, the removal of inherent sin for 
Christ's sake ; 3d, the positive infusion of grace. 

Of this justification they teach that the final cause is the 
glory of God and eternal life. The efficient cause is the power 



510 JUSTIFICA TION. 

of the Holy Ghost. The meritorious cause the work of Christ. 
The instrumental cause baptism. The formal cause the influ- 
ence of grace, whereby we are made not merely forensically 
but inherently righteous. — "Council of Trent," Sess. vi., Chap- 
ter vii. 

They define faith in its relation to justification to be the 
beginning of human salvation, the fountain and root of all 
justification, i. e., of spiritual life. They consequently hold 
that justification is progressive, and that when a man receives 
a new nature in baptism, and the work of justification is com- 
menced in him with the forgiveness and the removal of sin, 
the work is to be carried on by the exercise of the grace im- 
planted, i. e., by good works. Since they confound justifica- 
tion with sanctification, they necessarily deny that men are 
justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or 
by mere faith without works. — Sess. 6, Can. 9th and 11th, "de 
Justificatione." 

They admit that justification is entirely gracious, i. e., of 
the mere mercy of God, and for the sake of the merits of Jesus 
Christ, as neither the spiritual exercises nor the works of men 
previous to justification have any merit whatsoever. — "Council 
of Trent," Sess. vi., Chapter viii. 

A careful distinction must be made between (a) that which 
in the case of an adult prepares for justification, (b) the reali- 
zation of justification in the first instance, (c) its subsequent 
progressive realization in the advance of the gracious soul 
in justification towards perfection, and (d) the restoration to 
a state of grace of the baptized Christian after backsliding 
into sin. 

1st. The preparation of the sinner for justification proceeds 
from the prevenient grace of God, without any merit on the 
part of the subject. This grace acting through the hearing 
of the word leads to conviction of sin, repentance, apprehen- 
sion of the mercy of God in Christ (the church), and hence 
to a determination to receive baptism and lead a new life 
("Cone. Trent," Sess. vi., chaps, v. and vi). 

2d. The actual justification of the sinner is the infusion of 
gracious habits, the pollution of sin having been washed away 
by the power of God, on account of the merits of Christ, through 
the instrumentality of baptism, which operates its effects by an 
energy made inherent in it, by the institution of God. After 
this, inherent sin being removed, remission of guilt necessarily 
follows as its immediate effect. Guilt is the relation which 
sin sustains to the justice of God. The thing being removed, 
the relation ceases ipso facto (Bellarmin, " De Amiss. Gratise," 
etc., v. 7. 



THE ROMISH DOCTRIXE. 511 

3d. Having; thus been justified and made a friend of God, 
the baptized Christian advances from virtue to virtue, and is 
renewed from day to day. through the observance of the com- 
mandments of God and of the church, faith co-operating with 
good works, now made possible in virtue of the previous justi- 
fication, and which truly merit, and receive as a just reward, 
increase of grace, and more and more perfect justification. His 
first justification was for Christ's sake, without any co-opera- 
tion of his own merit, but by consent of his own will. His sec- 
ond or continued and increasing justification is for Christ's sake, 
through and in proportion to his own merit, which deserves 
increase of grace and acceptance in proportion (a) to his per- 
sonal holiness, and (6) to his obedience to ecclesiastical rules 
("Cone. Trent," Sess. 6, Chap. x. and Can. 32). 

4th. In the case of those who having been justified, have 
sinned, the lost grace of justification is restored, for the merits 
of Christ, through the sacrament of Penance, which is provided 
as a second plank to rescue those who have shipwrecked grace. 
This penance includes (a) sorrow for sin. (b) confession to a 
priest having jurisdiction, (c) sacerdotal absolution. (J) satis- 
faction by alms, prayers, fasts, etc.. and this justification if not 
rendered perfect by these means on earth is completed by pur- 
gatorial fires. All these satisfactions, earthly and purgatorial, 
are meritorious satisfactions to divine justice, cancelling the 
temporal punishments attaching to the sins for which they are 
undergone, the eternal punishment whereof has been at once 
and freely remitted, either through the sacrament itself, or the 
honest desire for it ("Cone. Trent." Sess. 6. Chaps, xfv. and xvi, 
and Can. 30, and Sess. 14. Chaps, i.-ix). ■ 

33. What are the points of difference between Protestants and 

Romanists on this whole subject? 

1st. As to the nature of justification. We regard it as a 
judicial act of God. declaring the believer to be forensically 
just, on the ground of the righteousness of Christ made his by 
imputation. They regard it as the infusion of inherent grace. 

2d. As to its meritorious ground. Both say the merits of 
Christ. But they say these merits are made ours by sanctifica- 
tion. We, by imputation, through the instrumentality of faith. 

3d. As to the nature and office of faith. We say that it is 
the instrument: they the beginning and root of justification. 

4th. They say that justification is progressive. 

5th. That it may be lost by mortal sin and regained and 
increased through the sacrament of Penance, and completed in 
Purgatory. — See above. Chapter XXXII. , on "Repentance and 
Penance." 



512 yUSTIFICA TION. 

34. What are tlie leading arguments against the Bomanist view 
on this subject? 

1st. This whole doctrine is confused. (1.) It confounds 
under one definition two matters entirely distinct, namely, 
the forensic remission of the condemnation due to sin with 
the washing away of inherent sin, and the introduction to a 
state of covenant favor with God with the infusion of inherent 
grace. (2.) It renders no sensible account as to the manner in 
which the merit of Christ propitiates divine justice. 

2d. Their definition is refuted by all the evidence above 
exhibited, that the terms "justification" and "righteousness" 
are used in Scripture in a forensic sense. 

3d. Their view, by making our inherent grace wrought in 
us by the Holy Ghost for Christ's sake the ground of our ac- 
ceptance with God, subverts the whole gospel. It is of the 
very essence of the gospel that the ground of our acceptance 
with the Father is the mediatorial work of the Son, who is for 
us the end of the law for righteousness, and not our own 
graces. 

4th. Their view of the merit of works performed by divine 
grace after baptism is inconsistent with what Scripture teaches 
and the Komish Church itself teaches as to original sin and 
guilt, and as to the essential graciousness of the salvation 
wrought by Christ. Thomas Aquinas himself ("Summa.," Q. 
114, Art. 5) says, "If grace be considered in the sense of a 
gratuitous gift, all merit is excluded by grace." Therefore the 
entire system of Papist justification falls. 

5th. It is legal in its spirit and method, and consequently 
induces either spiritual pride or despair, but never can nourish 
true evangelical assurance at once humble and confident. 

6th. The Scriptures declare that on the ground of the pro- 
pitiation of Christ God justifies the believer as ungodly, not 
as sanctified. It certainly could not require an atonement 
to render God both just and the sanctifier of the ungodly. 
Kom. iv. 5. 

7th. The phrases to impute, reckon, count sin or righteous- 
ness are absolutely consistent only with a forensic interpreta- 
tion. To impute righteousness without works in the forensic 
sense, in the 4th chapter of Romans, is reasonable. To impute 
inherent grace without works is nonsense. 

8th. Their definition is refuted by all those arguments which 
establish the true view with respect to the nature and office of 
justifying faith. — See above, Questions 21-23. 



ROMISH DOCTRINE. 513 



AUTHOBITATIVE STATEMENTS. 

Romish Doctrine. —For statement of the nature, grountf, and means 
of justification, see above, under Ch. XXIX. For statement of Eomish 
Doctrine of Good Works and Works of Supererogation, see below, under 
Ch. XXXV. , and see Doctrine of Penance, above, under Ch. XXXII. 

" Counc. Trent," Sess. 6, ch. 8. — "We are said to be justified by faith, 
because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and 
the root of all justification." lb., can. 23. — "If any one saith that a 
man once justified can sin no more nor lose grace, and therefore he that 
falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the other hand, that he is 
able during his whole life to avoid all sins, even those that are venial, 
except by a special privilege from God, as the church holds in regard of 
the Blessed Virgin, let him be accursed." Can. 24. — "If anyone say 
that righteousness received is not preserved and also increased before 
God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits 
and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; 
let him be accursed. " Can. 29. — "If any one saith that he, who has fallen 
after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again ; or, that he 
is able indeed to recover the righteousness which he has lost, but by 
faith alone, without the sacrament of penance .... let him be 
accursed." Can. 30. — "If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justifi- 
cation has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted 
and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there 
remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in 
this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before he can enter the kingdom 
of heaven; let him be accursed." Can. 32. — "If any one saith, that th.e 
good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, 
as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or that 
the justified man, by the good works which he performs through the 
grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, 
does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment 
of eternal life if he die in grace, and also an increase of glory; let him 
be accursed." 

BELiiAKMiN, "De JusUficaMone," 5, 1. — "The common opinion of all 
Catholics holds that all the good works of justified persons are truly and 
properly meritorious, and deserving not merely of a reward of some sort, 
but of eternal life itself. 4, 7. — We say that good works are necessary to 
a justified man in order to his salvation, not only in the way of being 
present, but also in the way of efficiency, since they effect salvation, and 
faith without them does not effect it. lb. 5, 5. — The merits of justified 
persons do not stand opposed to the merits of Christ, but they spring 
from these, and whatever praise those merits of the justified have, 
redounds entire to the praise of the merits of Christ. " 

Lutheran Doctrine. — "Apologia Confessionis." — "To justify in this 
place (Rom. v. 1), signifies in a forensic sense to absolve an accused per- 
son and pronounce him righteous, but on account of another's righteous- 
ness, i. e., of Christ; which other's righteousness is made over to us 
through faith." 

"Formula Concordice " (Hase Ed.), p. 685. — "The term justification in 
this transaction means to pronounce righteous, to absolve from sins, and 
from the eternal punishment of sinners, on account of the righteousness 
of Christ, which is imputed by God to faith." lb. p. 684. — "Man a 
sinner may be justified before God . . without any merits or worthi- 
ness of ours, and apart from any works, preceding, accompanying, or 

33 



514 JUSTIFICATION. 

following, out of mere grace." lb. p. 584. — "We confess that faith alone 
is that means and instrument by which we apprehend Christ our Saviour, 
and in Christ of that righteousness, which can stand the judgment of 
God." lb. p. 689. — "Neither repentance, nor love, nor any other virtue, 
but faith alone, is the single means and instrument by which we are able 
to apprehend and accept the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and the 
remission of sins." 

Reformed Doctrine. 

"Westminster Confession of Faith," Ch. 11. 

"Heidelberg Cat." Ques. 60. — "Nevertheless I may now embrace all 
these benefits with a true boldness of mind; without any merit of mine, 
of the mere mercy of God, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and 
holiness of Christ is imputed and given to me, as if I had myself com- 
mitted no sin, nor incurred any stain ; yea, as if I had myself perfectly 
performed that obedience which Christ performed for me." 

Remonstrant Doctrine. — Limborch, "Christ. Theol." 6, 4,22. — "Let 
it be understood that, when we say we are justified by faith, we do not 
exclude works, which, faith requires, and as a fruitful mother produces, 
but we include them . . . nor by faith is a bare faith to be under- 
stood, as contradistinguished from the works which faith produces, but 
together with the faith, all that obedience which God in the New Testa- 
ment appoints, and which is supplied by faith in Jesus Christ. . . . 
31. — But faith is a condition in us and is required of us in order that we 
may obtain justification. It is therefore an act which, although viewed 
in itself it is by no means perfect, but in many respects defective, is yet 
received as full and perfect by God graciously and freely, and on account 
of it God graciously bestows remission of sins and the reward of eternal 
life. . . 29. — The object of faith (justifying) we declare to be Jesus 
Christ entire, as prophet, priest, and king; not only his propitiation, but 
his precepts, promises, and threatenings; by it therefore we embrace the 
entire Christ, his word, and all his saving benefits." 

Socinian Doctrine. — "Baconian Catechism," Sec. 5, ch. 9. — "The 
faith which is by itself followed by salvation, is such an assent to the 
doctrine of Christ that we apply it to its proper object; that is, that we 
trust in God through Christ, and give ourselves up wholly to obey his 
will, whereby we obtain his promises If piety and obedi- 
ence, when life is continued after the acknowledgment of Christ, be 
required as indispensable to salvation, it is necessary that the faith to 
which alone and in reality salvation is ascribed, should comprehend obe- 
dience. . . lb. ch. 11. — Justification is, when God regards us as just, 
or so deals with us as if we were altogether just and innocent. This he 
does in the New Covenant, in forgiving our sins and conferring upon us 
eternal life." 



CHAPTER XXXIV. 

ADOPTION, AND THE ORDER OF GRACE IN THE APPLICATION OF 

REDEMPTION, IN THE SEVERAL PARTS OF JUSTIFICATION, 

REGENERATION, AND SANCTIFICATION. 

1. To what classes of creatures is tlie term "sons," or "children 
of God" applied in the Scriptures, and on what grounds is that 
application made ? 

1st. In the singular it is applied, in a supreme and incom- 
municable sense, to the Second Person of the Trinity alone. 

2d. In the plural, to angels, (1) because they are God's 
favored creatures, (2) because as holy intelligences they are 
like him. — Job i. 6; xxxviii. 7. 

3d. To human magistrates, because they possess authority 
delegated from God, and in that respect resemble him. — Ps. 
lxxxii. 6. 

4th. To good men as the subjects of a divine adoption. 

This adoption, and the consequent sonship it confers is two- 
fold, (1) general and external, Ex. iv. 22; Rom. ix. 4; (2) spe- 
cial, spiritual and immortal. — Gal. iv. 4, 5; Eph. i. 4-6. 

2. What is the Adoption of ivhich believers are the subjects in 
Christ; and ivhat relation does the conception ivhich this word re- 
presents in Scripture sustain to those represented by the terms jus- 
tification, regeneration, and sanctification ? 

Turretin makes adoption a constituent part of justification. 
He says that in execution of the covenant of grace God sover- 
eignly imputes to the elect, upon their exercise of faith, the 
righteousness of Christ, which was the fulfilling of the whole 
law, precept as well as penalty, and therefore the legal ground, 
under the covenant of works, for securing to his people both 
remission of the penalty and a legal right to all the promises 
conditioned upon obedience. Upon the ground of this sover- 
eign imputation God judicially pronounces the law, in its 
federal relations, to be perfectly satisfied with regard to them, 
i. e., he justifies them, which involves two things, 1st, the re- 



516 ADOPTION. 

mission of the penalty due to their sins, 2d, the endowing theni 
with all the rights and relations which accrue from the positive 
fulfilment of the covenant of works by Christ in their behalf. 
This second constituent of justification he calls adoption, which 
essentially agrees with the definition of adoption given in our 
"Con. Faith," Chapter xii. ; " L. Cat," Q. 74; " S. Cat," Q. 34. 
Turretin, L. 16, Q. 4 and 6. 

The great Amesius (11633), in his "Medulla Theologica," 
ch. 28, represents Adoption as a new grace in advance of jus- 
tification, and not an element in it. A gracious sentence of 
God, whereby a believer, having been justified, is accepted for 
Christ's sake into the relation and rights of son ship. 

It appears, however, to us that the words "Adoption" and 
"Sonship," as used in Scripture, express more than a change 
of relation, and that they are more adequately conceived of as 
expressing a complex view, including the change of nature to- 
gether with the change of relation, and setting forth the new 
creature in his new relations. 

The instant a sinner is united to Christ in the exercise of 
faith, there is accomplished in him simultaneously and insepa- 
rably, 1st, a total change of relation to God, and to the law as 
a covenant; and, 2d, a change of inivard condition or nature. 
The change of relation is represented by justification; the 
change of nature is represented by the term regeneration. 
Kegeneration is an act of God originating by a new creation 
a new spiritual life in the heart of the subject The first and 
instant act of that new creature, consequent upon his regenera- 
tion, is faith, or a believing, trusting embrace of the person 
and work of Christ. Upon the exercise of faith by the regene- 
rated subject, justification is the instant act of God, on the 
ground of that perfect righteousness which the sinner's faith 
has apprehended, declaring him to be free from all condem- 
nation and to have a legal right to the relations and benefits 
secured by the covenant which Christ has fulfilled in his behalf. 
Sanctification is the progressive growth toward the perfected 
maturity of that new life which was implanted in regenera- 
tion. Adoption presents the new creature in his new relation ; 
his new relations entered upon with a congenial heart, and 
his new life developing in a congenial home, and surrounded 
with those relations which foster its growth, and crown it 
with blessedness. Justification is wholly forensic, and con- 
cerns only relations, immunities, and rights. Eegeneration 
and sanctification are wholly spiritual and moral, and concern 
only inherent qualities and states. Adoption comprehends the 
complex condition of the believer as at once the subject of 
both. 



THE "ORDO SALUTIS." 517 

3d. What is the order of grace in the application of Bedemption ? 

I. The two principles which fundamentally characterize 
Protestant Soteriology are — 1st. The clear distinction between 
the change of relation signalized by justification, and the 
change of character signalized by regeneration and sanctifica- 
tion. 2d. That the change of relation, the remission of penalty, 
and the restoration to favor involved in justification, neces- 
sarily precedes, and renders possible, the real moral change ex- 
pressed by regeneration and sanctification. The continuance 
of judicial condemnation precludes the exercise of grace. Re- 
mission of punishment must precede the work of the Spirit. 
We are pardoned in order that we may be good, never made 
good in order that we may be pardoned. 

"It is evident that God must himself already have been 
secretly favorable and gracious to a man, and must already 
have pardoned him forum divinum, for the sake of Christ and 
his relation to human nature, to be able to bestow upon him 
the grace of regeneration. In fact viewed as actus Deiforensis 
there was of necessity that it should be regarded as existing 
prior to man's consciousness of it, nay prior to faith." — Dr. J. 
A. Dorner's "Hist. Prot. Theo.," Vol. II., pp. 156, 160. 

II. Hence the apparent circle in the order of grace. The 
righteousness of Christ is said to be imputed to the believer, 
and justification to be through faith. Yet faith is an act of a 
soul already regenerated, and regeneration is possible only to 
a soul to whom God is reconciled by the application of Christ's 
satisfaction. 

Thus the satisfaction and merit of Christ is the antecedent 
cause of regeneration, and on the other hand the participation 
of the believer in the satisfaction and merit of Christ (his jus- 
tification) is conditioned on his faith, which is the effect of his 
regeneration. We must have part in Christ so far forth as 
to be regenerated, in order to have part in him so far forth as to 
be justified. 

This is not a question of order in time, because regene- 
ration and justification are gracious acts of God absolutely 
synchronous. The question is purely as to the true order of 
causation; Is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us that 
we may believe, or is it imputed to us because we believe ? Is 
justification an analytic judgment, that the man is justified as 
a believer though a sinner, or is it a synthetic judgment, that 
this sinner is justified for Christ's sake ? 

III. The solution is to be sought in the fact that Christ im- 
petrated the application of his salvation to his " own," and all 
the means, conditions, and stages thereof, and that this was 



518 ADOPTION. 

done in pursuance of a covenant engagement with the Father, 
which provided for the application of redemption to specific 
persons at certain times and under certain conditions. The 
relation from birth of an elect person to Adam, and to sin and 
its condemnation, is precisely the same with that of all his fel- 
low-men. But his relation to the satisfaction and merits of 
Christ, and to the graces they impetrate, is analogous to that 
of an heir to an inheritance secured to him by will. As long as 
he is under age the will secures the inchoate right of the heir 
de jure. It provides for his education at the expense of the 
estate in preparation for his inheritance. It determines the 
previous instalments of his patrimony to be given him by his 
trustees. It determines in some sense his present status as a 
prospective heir. It determines the precise time and condi- 
tions of his being inducted into absolute possession. He pos- 
sesses certain rights and enjoys certain benefits from the first. 
But he has absolute rights and powers of ownership only when 
he reaches the period and fulfils the conditions prescribed there- 
for in the will. Thus the merits of Christ are imputed to the 
elect heir from his birth so far forth as they constitute the basis 
of the gracious dealing provided for him as preparatory to his 
full possession. 

Justification is assigned by Protestant theologians to that 
final mental act of God as Judge whereby he declares the heir 
in full possession of the rights of his inheritance, henceforth to 
be recognized and treated as the heir in possession, although 
the actual consummation of that possession is not effected until 
the resurrection. Christ and his righteousness are not given 
to the believer because of faith. Faith is the conscious trust- 
ing receiving of that which is already given. Our Catechism, 
Ques. 33, says, "Justification is an act of God's free grace, 
wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as right- 
eous in his sight only for the righteousness of Christ (1) im- 
puted to us, and (2) received by faith alone." 

Regeneration and consequently faith are wrought in us for 
Christ's sake and as the result conditioned on a previous impu- 
tation of his righteousness to that end. Justification super- 
venes upon faith, and implies such an imputation of Christ's 
righteousness as effects a radical and permanent change of re- 
lationship to the law as a condition of life. 

4. What is represented in Scripture as involved in being a 
child of God by this adoption ? 

1st. Derivation of nature from God. — John i. 13; James i. 
18; 1 John v. 18. 



THE BENEFITS OF ADOPTION. 519 

2d. Being born again in the image of God, bearing his like- 
ness.— Eom. viii. 29; 2 Cor. iii. 18; Col. iii. 10; 2 Pet. i. 4. 

3d. Bearing his name. — 1 John iii. 1; Rev. ii. 17; iii. 12. 

4th. Being the objects of his peculiar love. — John xvii. 23; 
Rom. v. 5-8; Titus iii. 4; 1 John iv. 7-11. 

5th. The indwelling of the Spirit of his Son (Gal. iv. 5, 6), 
who forms in us a filial spirit, or a spirit becoming the children 
of God, obedient, 1 Pet. i. 14; 2 John 6; free from sense of 'guilt, 
legal bondage, fear of death, Rom. viii. i5, 21; 2 Cor. iii. 17; 
Gal. v. 1; Heb. ii. 15; 1 John v. 14; and elevated with a holy bold- 
ness and royal dignity, Heb. x. 19, 22 ; 1 Pet. ii. 9 ; iv. 14. 

6th. Present protection, consolations, and abundant provi- 
sions. — Ps. cxxv. 2; Isa. lxvi. 13; Luke xii. 27-32; John xiv. 18; 
1 Cor. iii. 21, 23; 2 Cor. i. 4. 

7th. Present fatherly chastisements for our good, includ- 
ing both spiritual and temporal afflictions. — Ps. Ii. 11, 12; Heb. 
xii. 5-11. 

8th. The certain inheritance of the riches of our Father's 
glory, as heirs with God and joint heirs with Christ, Rom. viii. 
17; James ii. 5; 1 Pet. i. 4; iii. 7; including the exaltation of 
our bodies to fellowship with him. — Rom. viii. 23; Phil. iii. 21. 

5. What relation do the three persons of the Trinity sustain to 
this adoption, and into what relation does it introduce us to each of 
them severally ? 

This adoption proceeds according to the eternal purpose of 
the Father, upon the merits of the Son, and by the efficient 
agency of the Holy Ghost. — John i. 12, 13 ; Gal. iv. 5. 6 ; Titus 
iii. 5, 6. By it God the Father is made our Father. The incar- 
nate God-man is made our elder brother, and we are made — (1) 
like him ; (2) intimately associated with him in community of 
life, standing, relations, and privileges; (3) joint heirs with him 
of his glory. — Rom. viii. 17, 29 ; Heb. ii. 17 ; iv. 15. The Holy 
Ghost is our indweller, teacher, guide, advocate, comforter, and 
sanctifier. All believers, being subjects of the same adoption, 
are brethren. — Eph. iii. 6; 1 John iii. 14; v. 1. 



CHAPTER XXXV. 

SANCTIFICATION. 

1. What sense do the words dyios, holy and dyid&iv, to sanc- 
tify, bear in the Scriptures ? 

The verb dyid&iv is used in two distinct senses in the New 
Testament : 

1st. To make clean physically, or morally. (1.) Ceremonial 
purification. — Heb. ix. 13. (2.) To render clean in a moral 
sense. — 1 Cor. vi. 11; Heb. xiii. 12. Hence the phrase "them 
that are sanctified" is convertable with believers. — 1 Cor. i. 2. 

2d. To set apart from a common to a sacred use, to devote, 
(1) spoken of things, Matt, xxiii. 17; (2) spoken of persons, 
John x. 36; (3) to regard and venerate as holy, Matt. vi. 9; 
1 Pet iii. 15. 

"Ayiot, as an adjective, pure, holy, as a noun, saint, is also 
used in two distinct senses, corresponding to those of the verb. 

1st. Pure, clean; (1) ceremonially, (2) morally, Eph. i. 4, 
(3) as a noun, saints, sanctified ones, Rom. i. 7 ; viii. 27. 

2d. Consecrated, devoted. — Matt. iv. 5 ; Acts vi. 13 ; xxi. 28 ; 
Heb. ix. 3. This word is also used in ascriptions of praise to 
God. — John xvii. 11; Rev. iv. 8. 

2. What are the different vieivs entertained as to the nature of 
sanctification ? 

1st. Pelagians denying original sin and the moral inability of 
man, and holding that sin can be predicated only of acts of the 
will, and not of inherent states or dispositions, consequently 
regard sanctification as nothing more than a moral reformation 
of life and habits, wrought under the influence of the truth in 
the natural strength of the sinner himself. 

2d. The advocates of the "exercise scheme" hold that we can 
find nothing in the soul other than the agent and his exercises. 
Regeneration, therefore, is nothing more than the cessation from 
a series of unholy, and the inauguration of a series of holy 



DOCTRINE STATED. 521 

exercises; and sanctification the maintenance of these holy 
exercises. One party, represented by Dr. Emmons, say that 
God immediately effects these holy exercises. Another party, 
represented by Dr. Taylor, of New Haven, held that the man 
himself determines the character of his own exercises by choos- 
ing God as his chief good ; the Holy Spirit in some unexplained 
way assisting. — See above, Chap. XXIX., Questions 5 and 6. 

3d. Many members of the Church of England, as distin- 
guished from the evangelical party, hold that a man conform- 
ing to the church, which is the condition of the Gospel cove- 
nant, is introduced to all the benefits of that covenant, and 
in the decent performance of relative duties and observance 
of the sacraments, is enabled to do all that is now required 
of him, and to attain to all the moral good now possible or 
desirable. 

4th. The orthodox doctrine is that the Holy Ghost, by his 
constant influences upon the whole soul in all its faculties, 
through the instrumentality of the truth, nourishes, exercises, 
and develops those holy principles and dispositions which he 
implanted in the new birth, until by a constant progress all 
sinful dispositions being mortified and extirpated, and all holy 
dispositions being fully matured, the subject of this grace is 
brought immediately upon death to the measure of the stature 
of perfect manhood in Christ. 

"Con. Faith," Chap. xiii. ; "L. Cat.," Question 75; "S. Cat," 
Question 35. 

3. How can it be shoivn that sanctification involves more than 
mere reformation ? 

See above, Chap. XXIX., Question 12. 

4. How may it be shown that it involves more than the 'produc- 
tion of holy exercises ? 

See above, Chap. XXIX., Questions 7-10. 

Besides the arguments presented in the chapter above re- 
ferred to, this truth is established by the evidence of those 
passages of Scripture which distinguish between the change 
wrought in the heart and the effects of that change in the 
actions. — Matt. xii. 33-35 ; Luke vi. 43-45. 

5. What relation does sanctification sustain to regeneration ? 

Eegeneration is the creative act of the Holy Spirit, implant- 
ing a new principle of spiritual life in the soul. Conversion is 
the first exercise of that new gracious principle, in the spontane- 
ous turning of the new-born sinner to God. Sanctification is 



522 SANCTIFICA TION. 

the sustaining and developing work of the Holy Ghost, bring- 
ing all the faculties of the soul more and more perfectly under the 
purifying and regulating influence of the implanted principle 
of spiritual life. 

6. What is the relation which justification and sanctification 
sustain to each other ? 

In the order of nature, regeneration precedes justification, 
although as to time they are always necessarily contemporane- 
ous. The instant God regenerates a sinner he acts faith in 
Christ. The instant he acts faith in Christ he is justified, and 
sanctification, which is the work of carrying on and perfecting 
that which is begun in regeneration, is accomplished under the 
conditions of those new relations into which he is introduced 
by justification. In justification we are delivered from all the 
penal consequences of sin, and brought into such a state of 
reconciliation with God, and communion of the Holy Ghost, 
that we are emancipated from the bondage of legal fear, and 
endued with that spirit of filial confidence and love which is 
the essential principle of all acceptable obedience. Our justifi- 
cation, moreover, proceeds on the ground of our federal union 
with Christ by faith, which is the basis of that vital and spirit- 
ual union of the soul with him from whom our sanctification 
flows. — See above, Chap. XXXL, Question 3. 

7. Hoiv can it be shown that this ivork extends to the whole 
man, the understanding, will, and affections ? 

The soul is a unit, the same single agent alike, thinking, 
feeling, and willing. A man can not love that loveliness which 
he does not perceive, nor can he perceive that beauty, whether 
moral or natural, which is uncongenial to his own heart. His 
whole nature is morally depraved, 1st, blind or insensible to 
spiritual beauty; 2d, averse, in the reigning dispositions of the 
will, to moral right, and therefore disobedient. The order in 
which the faculties act is as follows : The intellect perceives the 
qualities of the object concerning which the mind is engaged; 
the heart loves those qualities which are congenial to it; the 
will chooses that which is loved. 

This is proved, 1st, by experience. As the heart becomes 
more depraved the mind becomes more insensible to spiritual 
light. On the other hand, as the eyes behold more and more 
clearly the beauty of the truth, the more lively become the 
affections, and the more obedient the will. 2d. From the tes- 
timony of Scripture. By nature the whole man is depraved. 
The understanding darkened, as well as the affections and will 
perverted. — Eph. iv. 18. 



THE AGENCY OF THE TRUTH. 523 

If this be so, it is evident that sanctification must also be 
effected throughout the entire nature. 1st. From the necessity 
of the case. 2d. From the testimony of Scripture. — Rom. vi. 
13; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. i. 18; Col. iii. 10; 1 Thess. v. 23; 1 John 
iv. 7. 

8. In what sense is tlve body sanctified? 

1st. As consecrated, (1) as being the temple of the Holy 
Ghost, 1 Cor. vi. 19; (2) hence as being a member of Christ. — 
1 Cor. vi. 15. 2d. As sanctified, since they are integral parts 
of our persons, their instincts and appetites act immediately 
upon the passions of our souls, and consequently these must be 
brought subject to the control of the sanctified soul, and all its 
members, as organs of the soul, made instruments of righteous- 
ness unto God. — Rom. vi. 13; 1 Thess. iv. 4. 3d. It will be 
made like Christ's glorified body. — 1 Cor. xv. 44; Phil. iii. 21. 

9. To whom is the ivork of sanctification referred in Scripture ? 

1st. To the Father.— 1 Thess. vi. 23; Heb. xiii. 21. 2d. To 
the Son.— Eph. v. 25, 26 ; Titus ii. 14. 3d. To the Holy Ghost.— 
1 Cor. vi. 11; 2 Thess. ii. 13. 

In all external actions the three Persons of the Trinity are 
always represented as concurring, the Father working through 
the Son and Spirit, and the Son through the Spirit. Hence the 
work of sanctification is with special prominence attributed to 
the Holy Spirit, since he is the immediate agent therein, and 
since this is his special office work in the plan of redemption. 

10. What do the Scriptures teach as to the agency of the truth 
in the work of sanctification ? 

The whole process of sanctification consists in the develop- 
ment and confirmation of the new principle of spiritual life im- 
planted in the soul in regeneration, conducted by the Holy Ghost 
in perfect conformity to, and through the operation of the laws 
and habits of action natural to the soul as an intelligent, moral 
and free agent. Like the natural faculties both of body and 
mind, and the natural habits which modify the actions of those 
faculties, so Christian graces, or spiritual habits, are developed 
by exercise; the truths of the gospel being the objects upon 
which these graces act, and by which they are both excited and 
directed. Thus the divine loveliness of God presented in the 
truth, which is his image, is the object of our complacent love; 
his goodness of our gratitude; his promises of our trust; his 
judgments of our wholesome awe, and his commandments 
variously exercise us in the thousand forms of filial obedience. 
John xvii. 19; 1 Pet. i. 22; ii. 2; 2 Pet. i. 4; James i. 18. 



524 SANCTIFICA TION. 

11. What efficiency do the Scriptures ascribe in this work to 
the Sacraments ? 

There are three views entertained on this subject by theo- 
logians — 

1st. The lowest view is, that the sacraments simply, as 
symbols, present the truth in a lively manner to the eye, and 
are effective thus only as a form of presenting the gospel 
objectively. 

2d. The opinion occupying the opposite extreme is, that 
they, of their own proper efficiency, convey sanctifying grace ex 
opere operato, "because they convey grace by the virtue of the 
sacramental action itself, instituted by God for this very end, 
and not through the merit either of the agent (priest) or the 
receiver." — Bellarmin, "De Sac," 2, 1. 

3d. The true view is, "that the sacraments are efficacious 
means of grace, not merely exhibiting but actually conferring 
upon those who worthily receive them the benefits which they 
represent;" yet this efficacy does not reside properly in them, 
but accompanies their proper use in virtue of the divine insti- 
tution and promise, through the accompanying agency of the 
Holy Ghost, and as suspended upon the exercise of faith upon 
the part of the recipient, which faith is at once the condition 
and the instrument of the reception of the benefit. — Matt. iii. 11; 
Acts ii. 41; x. 47; Rom. vi. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Titus iii. 5; 1 Pet. 
iii. 21. 

12. What office do the Scriptures ascribe to faith in sanctifi- 
cation ? 

Faith is the first grace in order exercised by the soul conse- 
quent upon regeneration, and the root of all other graces in 
principle. — Acts xv. 9 ; xxvi. 18. It is instrumental in securing 
sanctification therefore — 

1st. By securing the change of the believer's relation to 
God and to the law, as a condition of life and favor. — See above, 
Question 6. 

2d. By securing his union with Christ. — 1 Cor. xiii. ; Gal. 
ii. 20; Col. iii. 3. 

3d. It is sanctifying in its own nature, since, in its widest 
sense, faith is that spiritual state of the soul in which it holds 
living active communion with spiritual truth. "By this faith 
a Christian believeth to be true, whatsoever is revealed in the 
word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and 
acteth differently, upon that which every particular passage 
thereof contain eth; yielding obedience to the commands, trem- 
bling to the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God 






NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN COUNSELS AND PRECEPTS. 525 

for this life, and that which is to come." — "Conf. Faith," ch. 
14, § 2. 

13. What, according to Scripture, is necessary to constitute a 
good work ? 

1st. That it should spring from a right motive, i. e., love 
for God's character, regard for his authority, and zeal for his 
glory; love as a fruit of the Spirit, if not always consciously 
present, yet reigning as a permanent and controlling principle 
in the soul. 

2d. That it be in accordance with his revealed law. — Deut. 
xii. 32; Isa. i. 11, 12; Col. ii. 16-23. 

14 What is the Popish doctrine as to u the counsels" of Christ, 
ivhich are not included in the positive precepts of the law ? 

The positive commands of Christ are represented as binding 
on all classes of Christians alike, and their observance necessary 
in order to salvation. His counsels, on the other hand, are 
binding only upon those who, seeking a higher degree of per- 
fection and a more excellent reward, voluntarily assume them. 
These are such as celibacy, voluntary poverty, etc., and obedi- 
ence to rule (monastic). — Bellarmin, "de Monachis," Cap. vii. 

The wickedness of this distinction is evident — 

1st. Because Christ demands the entire consecration of every 
Christian : after we have done all we are only unprofitable ser- 
vants. Yforks of supererogation, therefore, are impossible. 

2d. All such will worship is declared abhorrent to God. — Col. 
ii. 18-23; 1 Tim. iv. 3. 

15. WJiat judgment is to be formed of the good ivories of unre- 
neiued men? 

Unrenewed men retain some dispositions and affections in 
themselves relatively good, and they do many things in them- 
selves right, and according to the letter of God's law. Yet — 

1st. As to his person, every unrenewed man is under God's 
wrath and curse, and consequently can do nothing pleasing to 
him. The rebel in arms is in every thing a rebel until he sub- 
mits and returns to his allegiance. 

2d. Love for God and regard to his authority are never his 
supreme motive in any of his acts. Thus while many of his 
actions are civilly good as respects his fellow-men, none of them 
can be spiritually good as it respects God. There is an obvious 
distinction between an act viewed in itself, and viewed in con- 
nection with its agent. The sinner, previous to justification 
and renewal, is a rebel; each one of his acts is the act of a 



526 SANCTIFICA TION. 

rebel, though as considered in itself any single act may be 
either good, bad, or indifferent. 

16. In what sense are good works necessary for salvation? 

As the necessary and invariable fruits of both the change 
of relation accomplished in justification, and of the change of 
nature accomplished in regeneration, though never as the 
meritorious grounds or conditions of our salvation. 

This necessity results, 1st, from the holiness of God ; 2d, from 
his eternal purpose, Eph. i. 4; ii. 10; 3d, from the design and 
redemptive efficacy of Christ's death, Eph. v. 25-27; 4th, from 
the union of the believer with Christ, and the energy of his 
indwelling Spirit, John xv. 5; Gal. v. 22; 5th, from the very 
nature of faith, which first leads to and then works by love, 
Gal. v. 6; 6th, from the command of God, 1 Thes. iv. 6; 1 Pet. 
i. 15 ; 7th, from the nature of heaven, Eev. xxi. 27. 

17. What is the tlieory of the Antinomians upon this subject ? 

Antinomians are, as their name signifies, those who deny 
that Christians are bound to obey the law. They argue that, 
as Christ has in our place fulfilled both the preceptive and the 
penal departments of God's law, his people must be delivered 
from all obligation to observe it, either as a rule of duty or as a 
condition of salvation. — See above, Question 3, Chap. XXV. 

It is evident that all systems of Perfectionism, which teach 
(as the Pelagian and Oberlin theories) that men's ability to 
obey is the measure of their responsibility, or (as the Papal 
and Arminian theories) that God, for Christ's sake, has gra- 
ciously reduced his demand from absolute moral perfection to 
faith and evangelical obedience, are essentially Antinomian. 
Because they all agree in teaching that Christians in this life 
are no longer under obligations to fulfil the Adamic law of 
absolute moral perfection. 

Paul, in the 6th chapter of Eomans, declares that this damn- 
able heresy was charged as a legitimate consequent upon his 
doctrine in that day. He not only repudiates the charge, but, 
on the contrary, affirms that free justification through an im- 
puted righteousness, without the merits of works, is the only 
possible condition in which the sinner can learn to bring forth 
holy works as the fruits of filial love. The very purpose of 
Christ was to redeem to himself a peculiar people, zealous of 
good works, and this he accomplished by delivering them from 
the federal bondage of the law, in order to render them capable 
as the Lord's freed men of moral conformity to it, ever increas- 
ingly in this life, absolutely in the life to come. 



"MERIT OF CONDIGNITY AND MERIT OF CONGRUITY." 527 

18. What are the different senses which have been applied to the 
term "merit"? 

It has been technically used in two different senses. 1st. 
Strictly, to designate the common quality of all services to 
which a reward is due, ex justicia, on account of their intrinsic 
value and dignity. 2d. Improperly, it was used by the Fathers 
as equivalent to that which results in or attains to a reward or 
consequent, without specifying the ground or virtue on account 
of which it is secured. — Turretin, L. xvii., Quaestio 5. 

19. What distinction does the Romish Church design to signal- 
ize by the terms "merit of condignity" and the u merit of congruity" ? 

The " merit of condignity " they teach attaches only to 
works wrought subsequently to regeneration by the aid of 
divine grace, and is that degree of merit that intrinsically, and 
in the way of equal right, not by mere promise or covenant, 
deserves the reward it attains at God's hands. The " merit of 
congruity " they teach attaches to those good dispositions or 
works which a man may, previously to regeneration, realize 
without the aid of divine grace, and which makes it congruous 
or specially fitting for God to reward the agent by infusing 
grace into his heart. 

It is extremely difficult to determine the exact position of 
the Romish Church on this subject, since different schools of 
theologians in her midst differ widely, and the decisions of the 
Council of Trent are studiously ambiguous. The general be- 
lief appears to be that ability to perform good works springs 
from grace infused into the sinner's heart for Christ's sake, 
through the instrumentality of the sacraments, but that after- 
wards these good works merit, that is, lay for us the founda- 
tion of a just claim to salvation and glory. Some say, like 
Bellarmin, "De Justific," 5, 1, and 4, 7, that this merit attaches 
to the good works of Christians intrinsically, as well as in con- 
sequence of God's promise; others that these works deserve the 
reward only because God has promised the reward on the 
condition of the work. — "Coun. Trent," Sess. vi., Cap. xvi., and 
canons 24 and 32. 

20. What is necessary that a ivorh should be in the proper sense 
of the term meritorious ? 

Turretin makes five conditions necessary to that end. 1st. 
That the work be not of debt, or which the worker was under 
obligation to render. — Luke xvii. 10. 2d. That it is our own, 
i. e., effected by our own natural energy. 3d. That it be per- 
fect. 4th. That it be equal to the reward merited. 5th. That 



528 SANCTIFICA TION. 

the reward be of justice due to such an act. — Turretin, L. xvii., 
Qusestio 5. 

According to this definition, it is evident, from the absolute 
dependence and obligation of the creature, that he can never 
merit any reward for whatever obedience he may render to the 
commands of his Creator. 1st. Because all the strength he 
works with is freely given by God. 2d. All the service he can 
render is owed to God. 3d. Nothing he can do can equal the 
reward of God's favor and eternal blessedness. 

Under the covenant of works, God graciously promised to 
reward the obedience of Adam with eternal life. This was a 
reward, however, not of merit, but of free grace and promise. 
Every thing under that constitution depended upon the stand- 
ing of the person before God. As long as Adam continued 
without sin, his services were accepted and rewarded according 
to promise. But from the moment he forfeited the promise, and 
lost his standing before God, no work of his, no matter of what 
character, could merit any thing at the hand of God. 

21. Hoiv can it be proved that our good works, even after the 
restoration of our person to God's favor by justification, do not 
merit heaven ? 

1st. Justification proceeds upon the infinite merits of Christ, 
and on that foundation rests our title to the favor of God and 
all the infinite consequences thereof. Christ's merit, lying at 
the foundation and embracing all, excludes the possibility of our 
meriting any thing. 2d. The law demands perfect obedience. — 
Eom. iii. 23; Gal. v. 3. 3d. We are saved by grace not by 
works. — Eph. ii. 8, 9. 4th. All good dispositions are graces or 
gifts of God.— 1 Cor. xv. 10; Phil. ii. 13; 1 Thess. ii. 13. 
5th. Eternal life itself is declared to be the gift of God. — 1 
John v. 11. 

22. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the good ivorhs 
of believers, and the rewards promised to them ? 

Both the work and its reward are branches from the same 
gracious root. The covenant of grace provides alike for the 
infusion of grace in the heart, the exercise of this grace in the 
life, and the rewards of that grace so exercised. It is all of 
grace, grace for grace, grace added to grace, presented to us in 
this form of a reward: 1st. That it may act upon us as a 
rational motive to diligent obedience. 2d. To mark that the 
gift of heaven and eternal blessedness is an act of strict legal 
justice (1) in respect to the perfect merits of Christ, (2) in re- 
spect to God's faithful adherence to his own free promise. — 1 
John i. 9. 3d. To indicate that the heavenly reward stands in 



PERFECTIONISM: PELAGIAN VIEW. 529 

a certain gracious proportion to the grace given in the obedi- 
ence on earth; (1) because God so wills it, Matt. xvi. 27; 1 Cor. 
iii. 8 ; (3) because the grace given on earth prepares the soul to 
receive the grace given in heaven, 2 Cor. iv. 17. 

is perfect sanctification attainable by believers in christ in 

this Life? 

23. What, in general terms, is perfectionism ? 

The various theories of perfectionism all agree in maintain- 
ing that it is possible for a child of God in this world to become, 
1st, perfectly free from sin, 2d, conformed to the law under 
which they now live. They differ very variously among them- 
selves, however, 1st, as to what sin is; 2d, as to what law we 
are now obliged to fulfil; 3d, as to the means whereby this 
perfection may be attained, whether by nature or by grace. 

24. How does the Pelagian theory of the nature of man and of 
grace lead to perfectionism ? 

Pelagians maintain, 1st, as to man's nature, that it was not 
radically corrupted by the fall, and that every man possesses 
sufficient power to fulfil all the duties required of him, since 
God can not in justice demand that which man has not full 
power to do. 2d. As to God's grace, that it is nothing more 
than the favorable constitution of our own minds, and the in- 
fluence exerted on them by the truth he has revealed to us, and 
the propitious circumstances in which he has placed us. Thus 
in the Christian church, and with the Christian revelation, men 
are, in fact, placed in the most propitious circumstances possible 
to persuade them to perform their duties. It follows from this 
system directly that every one who wishes may certainly attain 
perfection by using his natural powers and advantages of posi- 
tion with sufficient care. — " Wigger's Historical View of Augus- 
tinianism and Pelagianism." 

25. What, according to the Pelagian theory, is the nature of 
the sin from which man may be perfectly free; what the law which 
he may perfectly fulfil, and ivhat are the means by which this per- 
fection may be attained? 

They deny original and inherent corruption of nature, and 
hold that sin is only voluntary transgression of known law, 
from which any man may abstain if he will. 

As to the law which man in his present state may perfectly 
fulfil, they hold that it is the single and original law of God, 
the requirements of which, however, in the case of every indi- 
34 



530 SANCTIFICATIOjV. 

vidual subject, are measured by the individual's ability, and 
opportunities of knowledge. As to the means whereby this 
perfection may be attained, they maintain the plenary ability 
of man's natural will to discharge all the obligations resting 
upon him, and they admit the assistance of God's grace only 
in the sense of the influence of the truth, and other propitious 
circumstances in persuading man to use his own power. Thus 
the means of perfect sanctification are, 1st, man's own volition, 
2d, as helped by the study of the Bible, prudent avoidance of 
temptation, etc. 

26. In ivhat sense do Romanists hold the doctrine of perfection? 

The decisions of the Council of Trent upon the subject, as 
upon all critical points, are studiously ambiguous. They lay 
down the principle that the law must be possible to them upon 
whom it is binding, since God does not command impossibili- 
ties. Men justified (sanctified) may by the grace of God dwell- 
ing in them satisfy the divine law, pro hujus vital statu, i. e,, as 
graciously for Christ's sake adjusted to our present capacities. 
They confess, nevertheless, that the just may fall into venial 
sins every day, and that while in the flesh no man can live 
entirely without sin (unless by a special privilege of God) ; yet 
that in this life the renewed can fully keep the divine law; 
and even by the observance of the evangelical counsels do more 
than is commanded; and thus, as many saints have actually 
done, lay up a fund of supererogatory merit. — "Council of 
Trent," Session vi. Compare Chap. xi. and xvi., and Canons 
18, 23, and 32. See above, Question 14 

27. In ivhat sense do they hold that the renewed may, in this 
life live without sin ; in ivhat sense fully satisfy the law ; and by 
the use of ivhat means do they teach that this perfection may be 
attained ? 

As to sin, they hold the distinction between mortal and venial 
sins, and that the concupiscence that remains in the bosom of 
the renewed, as the result of original and the fuel of actual 
sin, is not itself sin, since sin consists only in the consent of 
the will to the impulse of concupiscence. In accordance with 
these views they hold that a Christian in this life may live 
wuthout committing mortal sins, but that he never can be free 
from the inward movements of concupiscence, nor from liability 
to fall through ignorance, inattention, or passion, into venial 
sins. 

As to the lata, which a believer in this life may fully satisfy, 
they hold that as God is just and can not demand of us what 



PERFECTIONISM: ARM INI AN VIEW. 531 

is impossible, his law is graciously adjusted to our present ca- 
pacities, as assisted by grace, and that it is this law pro hujus 
vitce statu, which we may fulfil. 

As to the means whereby this perfection may be attained, 
they hold that divine grace precedes, accompanies, and follows 
all of our good works, which divine grace is to be sought 
through those sacramental and priestly channels which Christ 
has instituted in his church, and especially in the observance 
of works of prayer, fasting, and alms deeds, and the acquisition 
of supererogatory merit by the fulfilment of the counsels of 
Christ to chastity, obedience, and voluntary poverty. — "Council 
of Trent," Sess. xiv., Chapter v., Sess. vi., Chapters xi. and xii., 
Sess. v., Canon 5; "Cat. Rom.," Part II. , Chapter ii., Question 
32, and Part II., Chapter v., Question 59, and Part III., Chapter 
x., Questions 5-10. 

28. In what form ivas the doctrine taught by the early Ar- 
minians ? 

Arminius declared that his mind was in suspense upon this 
subject ("Writings of Arminius," translated by Nichols, Vol. I., 
p. 256). His immediate successors in the theological leadership 
of the remonstrant party, developed a theory of perfectionism 
apparently identical with that taught by Wesley, and professed 
by his disciples. "A man can, with the assistance of divine 
grace, keep all the commandments of God perfectly, according 
to the gospel or covenant of grace. The highest evangelical 
perfection (for we are not teaching a legal perfection, which 
includes sinlessness entire in all respects and in the highest 
degree, and excludes all imperfection and infirmity, for this 
we believe to be impossible), embraces two things, 1st, a per- 
fection proportioned to the powers of each individual; 2d, 
a desire of making continual progress and increasing one's 
strength more and more." — Episcopius, quoted by Dr. G. Peck, 
"Christian Perfection," pp. 135 and 136. 

29. What is the Wesley an doctrine on this subject ? 

1st. That although every believer as soon as he is justified 
is regenerated, and commences the incipient stages of sanctifi- 
cation, yet this does not exclude the remains of much inherent 
sin, nor the warfare of the flesh against the Spirit, which may 
continue for a long time, but which must cease at some time 
before the subject can be fit for heaven. 

2d. This state of progressive sanctification is not itself per- 
fection, which is properly designated by the phrases "entire," 
or "perfect santification." This, sooner or later, every heir of 
glory must experience; although the majority do not reach it 



532 SANCTIFICATION. 

long before death, It is the attainment of some in the midst of 
life, and consequently it is the duty and privilege of all to 
desire, strive for, and expect its attainment now. 

3d. This state of evangelical perfection does not consist in 
an ability to fulfil perfectly the original and absolute law of 
holiness under which Adam was created, nor does it exclude 
all liability to mistake, or to the infirmities of the flesh, and of 
natural temperament, but it does exclude all inward disposition 
to sin as well as all outward commission of it, since it consists 
in a state in which perfect faith in Christ and perfect love for 
God fills the whole soul and governs the entire life, and thus 
fulfils all the requirements of the "law of Christ," under which 
alone the Christian's probation is now held. 

30. In ivhat sense do they teach that men may live without sin ? 

Mr. Wesley did not himself use, though he did not object to, 
the phrase " sinless perfection." He distinguished between 
" sin, properly so called, i. e., a voluntary transgression of a 
known law, and sin, improperly so called, i. e., an involuntary 
trangression of a divine law, known or unknown," and declared 
" I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes 
these involuntary transgressions, which I apprehend to be nat- 
urally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable 
from mortality." He also declares that the obedience of the 
perfect Christian " can not bear the rigor of God's justice, but 
needs atoning blood," and consequently the most perfect "must 
continually say, 'forgive us our trespasses,'" and Dr. Peck says 
that the holier men are here " the more they loathe and abhor 
themselves." On the other hand they hold that a Christian 
may in this life attain to a state of perfect and constant love, 
which fulfils perfectly all the requirements of the gospel cove- 
nant. Violations of the original and absolute law of God are 
not counted to the believer for sin, since for him Christ has 
been made the end of that law for righteousness, and for Christ's 
sake he has been delivered from that law and been made sub- 
ject to the " law of Christ," and that only is sin to the Christian 
which is a violation of this law of love. See Mr. Wesley's 
" Tract on Christian Perfection," in the volume of " Methodist 
Doctrinal Tracts," pp. 294, 310, 312, and Dr. Peck's " Christian 
Doc. of Perfection," p. 204 

31. What law do they say the Christian can in this life per- 
fectly obey ? 

Dr. Peck says, p. 244, " To fallen humanity, though renewed 
by grace, perfect obedience to the moral law is inpracticable 
during the present probationary state. And consequently Chris- 



PERFECTIONISM: O BERLIN VIEW. 533 

tian perfection does not imply perfect obedience to the moral 
law."— Peck, p. 244. 

This moral law they hold to be universal and unchangea- 
ble, all moral agents are under perpetual obligations to fulfil it, 
and they are in no degree released therefrom by their loss of 
ability through sin. — Peck, p. 271. This law sustains, how- 
ever, a twofold relation to the creature. 1st. It is a rule of 
being and acting. 2d. It is a condition of acceptance. In con- 
sequence of sin, it became impossible for men to obtain salva- 
tion by the law, and therefore Christ appeared and rendered to 
this law perfect satisfaction in our stead, and thus is for us the 
end of the law for righteousness. This law, therefore, remain- 
ing forever as a rule of duty, is abrogated by Christ as a condi- 
tion of our acceptance. "Nor is any man living bound to 
observe the Adamic more than the Mosaic law (I mean it is not 
the condition either of present or future salvation.)" — "Doc- 
trinal Tracts," p. 332. " The gospel, which is the law of love, 
the ' law of liberty,' offers salvation upon other terms, and yet 
provides the vindication of the broken law. The condition of 
justification at first is faith alone, and the condition of continued 
acceptance is faith working by love. There are degrees of faith, 
and degrees of love. . . . Perfect faith and perfect love is 
Christian perfection." "Christian character is estimated by the 
conditions of the gospel; Christian perfection implies the per- 
fect performance of these conditions and nothing more." 

32. By what means do they teach this perfection is to be at- 
tained? 

Wesley says, " I believe this perfection is always wrought 
in the soul by a simple act of faith, consequently in an instant. 
But I believe there is a gradual work, both preceding and fol- 
lowing that instant." — Quoted by Dr. Peck, pp. 47, 48. 

They hold that this entire sanctification is not to be effected 
through either the strength or the merit of man, but entirely 
of grace, for Christ's sake, by the Holy Ghost, through the in- 
strumentality of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which faith in- 
volves our believing, 1st, " in the sufficiency of the provisions 
of the gospel for the complete deliverance of the soul from sin." 
2d. "That these provisions are made for us" 3d. "That this 
blessing is for us noiv." — Peck, "Ch. Doc. Sane," pp. 405-407. 

33. What is the Oberlin doctrine of perfection? 

" It is a full and perfect discharge of our entire duty, of all 
existing obligations to God, and all other beings. It is perfect 
obedience to the moral law." This is God's original and uni- 



534 SANCTIFICATION. 

versal law, which, however, always, not because of grace, but 
of sheer justice, adjusts its demands to the measure of the pres- 
ent ability of the subject. The law of God can not now justly 
demand that we should love him as we might have done if we 
had always improved our time, etc. Yet a Christian may now 
attain to a state of "perfect and disinterested benevolence," 
may be, " according to his knowledge, as upright as God is," and 
as "perfectly conformed to the will of God as is the will of the 
inhabitants of heaven." And this, Mr. Finney appears to teach, 
is essential for even the lowest stage of genuine Christian ex- 
perience. The amount of the matter appears to be, God has a 
right to demand only that w T hich we have the power to render; 
therefore, it follows that we have full power to render all that 
God demands, and, therefore, we may be as perfectly conformed 
to his will as it regards 21s, as the inhabitants of heaven are to 
his will as it regards them." 

Pres. Mahan, " Scripture Doctrines of Christian Perfection," 
and Prof. Finney, " Oberlin Evangelist," Vol. IV., No. 19, and 
Vol. IV., No. 15, as quoted by Dr. Peck. 

34. State the points of agreement and disagreement between these 
several theories, Pelagian, Romish, Arminian, and Oberlin? 

1st. They all agree in maintaining that it is possible for men 
in this life to attain a state in which they may habitually and 
perfectly fulfil all their obligations, i. e., to be and do perfectly 
all that God requires them to be or do at present. 

2d. The Pelagian theory differs from all the rest, in denying 
the deterioration of our natural and moral powers, and conse- 
quently, in denying the necessity of the intervention of super- 
natural grace to the end of making men perfect. 

3d. The Pelagian and Oberlin theories agree in making the 
original moral law of God the standard of perfection. The 
Oberlin theologians, however, admitting that our powers are 
deteriorated by sin, hold that God's law, as a matter of sheer 
justice, adjusts its demands to the present ability of the subject. 
The Romish theory regards the same law as the standard of 
perfection, but differs from the Pelagian theory in maintaining 
that the demands of this law are adjusted to man's deteriorated 
powers ; and on the other hand, it differs from the Oberlin the- 
ory, by holding that the lowering of the demands of this law 
in adjustment to the enfeebled powers of man, instead of being 
of sheer justice, is of grace for the merits of Christ. The Ar- 
minian theory differs from all the rest in denying that the orig- 
inal law is the standard of evangelical perfection; in holding 
that that law having been fulfilled by Christ, the Christian is 
now required only to fulfil the requirements of the gospel cove- 



PERFECTIONISM : ARGUMENTS. 535 

nant of grace. This, however, appears to differ more in form 
than essence from the Romish position in this regard. 

4th. The Romish and Arminian theories agree — 1st. In 
admitting that the perfect Christian is still liable to transgress 
the provisions of the original moral law, and that he is subject 
to mistakes and infirmities. The Romanist calls them venial 
sins; the Arminian, mistakes or infirmities. 2d. In referring 
all the work of making man perfect to the efficiency of the 
Holy Ghost, who is given for Christ's sake. But they differ, on 
the other hand, 1st, as to the nature of that faith by which 
sanctification is effected, and, 2d, as to the merit of good works. 

35. What are the arguments upon which perfectionists sustain 
their tlwory, and hoio may they he ansiuered ? 

1st. They argue that this perfection is attainable in this life, 
(1.) From the commands of God, who never will command 
impossibilities. — Matt. v. 48. (2.) From the fact that abundant 
provision has already been made in the gospel for securing the 
perfect sanctification of God's people; in fact, all the provision 
that ever will be made. (3.) From the promises of God to 
redeem Israel from all his iniquities, etc. — Ps. cxxx. 8; Ezek. 
xxxvi. 25-29 ; 1 John i. 7, 9. (4.) From the prayers of saints 
recorded in Scripture with implied approval. — Ps. li. 2 ; Heb. 
xiii. 21. 

2d. They argue that this perfection has in fact been attained, 
(1.) From biblical examples, as David. — Acts xiii. 22. See also 
Gen. vi. 9; Job i. 1; Luke i. 6. (2.) Modern examples — Peck's 
" Christian Perfection," pp. 365-396. 

We answer — 

1st. The Scriptures never assert that a Christian may in this 
life attain to a state in which he may live without sin. 

2d. The meaning of special passages must be interpreted in 
consistency with the entire testimony of Scripture. 

3d. The language of Scripture never implies that man may 
here live without sin. The commands of God are adjusted to 
man's responsibility, and the aspirations and prayers of the 
saints to their duties and ultimate privileges, and not to their 
present ability. Perfection is the true aim of the Christian's 
effort in every period of growth and in every act. The terms 
"perfect" and "blameless" are often relative, or used to sig- 
nify simple genuineness or sincerity. This is evident from the 
recorded fact — 

4th. That all the perfect men of the Scriptures sometimes 
sinned; witness the histories of Noah, Job, David, Paul, and 
compare Gen. vi. 9, with Gen. ix. 21, and Job i. 1, with Job iii. 1, 



536 SANCTIFICATION. 

and ix. 20; also see Gal. ii. 11, 14; Ps. xix. 12; Eom. vii. ; Gal. 
v. 17; Phil. iii. 12-14 

36. What special objections bear against the Pelagian theory of 
perfection ? 

This is a part of a wholly Anti-Christian system. Its con- 
stituent elements are a denial of the Scripture testimony with 
regard to original sin, and the work of the Spirit of grace in 
effectual calling, and an assertion of man's ability to save him- 
self. It involves low views of the guilt and turpitude of sin, 
and of the extent, spirituality, and unchangeableness of God's 
holy law. This is the only perfectly consistent theory of perfec- 
tion ever ventilated, and in the same proportion it is the most 
thoroughly unchristian. 

37. What special objections bear against the Romish theory ? 

This theory is inconsistent — 

1st. With the true nature of sin. It denies that concupis- 
cence is sin, and admits as such only those deliberate acts of the 
will which assent to the impulse of concupiscence. It distin- 
guishes between mortal and venial sins. The truth is that 
every sin is mortal, and concupiscence, "sin dwelling in me," 
"law in my members," is of the very essence of sin. — Eom. 
vii. 8-23. 

2d. It is inconsistent with the nature of God's holy law, 
which is essentially immutable, and the demands of which have 
never been lowered in accommodation to the weakened faculties 
of men. 

3d. It is essentially connected with their theory of the 
merit of good works, and of the higher merit of works of 
supererogation which is radically subversive of the essentials 
of the gospel. 

38. What special objections bear against the Oberlin theory ? 

This theory appears to assimilate more nearly than the 
others with the terrible self-consistency and the Anti-Christian 
spirit of the Pelagian view. It differs from that heresy, how- 
ever, in holding — 1st. That the law of God is, as a matter of 
sheer justice, accommodated to the weakened faculties of men. 
2d. That the shortcomings of men in the present life, as meas- 
ured by the original law of God, are not sin, since a man's duty 
is measured only by his ability. 3d. In making the principle 
of this perfection to consist in "perfect and disinterested 
benevolence." In all these respects, also, this theory is incon- 
sistent with the true nature of God's law, the true nature of 
sin, and the true nature of virtue. 



PERFECTIONISM : OBJECTIONS. 537 

39. What special objections bear against the Arminian theory? 

This view, as presented by the Wesleyan standard writers, 
is far less inconsistent with the principles and spirit of Chris- 
tianity than either of the others, and consequently it is pre- 
cisely in the same proportion less self-consistent as a theory, 
and less accurate in its use of technical language. These Chris- 
tian brethren are to be honored for their exalted views, and 
earnest advocacy of the duty of pressing forward to the high- 
est measures of Christian attainment, while it is to be forever 
lamented that their great founder was so far misled by the 
prejudices of system as to bind in unnatural alliance so much 
precious truth with a theory and terminology proper only to 
radical error. I will make here, once for all, the general ex- 
planation, that when stating the Arminian doctrine on any 
point, I have generally preferred to refer to the form in which 
the doctrine was explicitly defined by the Dutch Remonstrants, 
rather than to the modified, and, as it seems to me, far less 
logically definite form in which it is set forth by the author- 
ities of the Wesleyan churches, who properly style themselves 
" Evangelical Arminians." I attribute the peculiar theoretical 
indefiniteness which appears to render their definitions obscure, 
especially on the subjects of justification and of perfection, to 
the spirit of a warm, loving, working Christianity struggling 
with the false premises of an Arminian philosophy. 

1st. While over and over insisting upon the distinction as 
to the twofold relation sustained by the original law of God 
to man (1) as a rule of being and acting, (2) as a condition of 
divine favor, their whole theory is based' upon a logical con- 
fusion of these two things so distinct. Dr. Peck teaches ear- 
nestly, and confirms by many Wesleyan testimonies, excellent 
Calvinistic doctrine upon the following points: The original 
law of God is universal and unchangeable, its demands never 
can be changed nor compromised. Obedience to this law was 
the condition of the original covenant of works. This condi- 
tion was broken by Adam, but, in our behalf, perfectly fulfilled 
by Christ, and thus the integrity of God's changeless law was 
preserved. Therefore, he goes on to argue, the believer is no 
longer under the law, but under the covenant of grace, i. e., 
to use Wesley's own qualifying parenthesis, "as the condition 
of either present or future salvation." Certainly, we answer, 
Christ is the end of the law for us for righteousness, in its 
forensic sense, that is, to secure our justification, but surely 
Christ did not satisfy that changeless law, in our place, in such 
a sense that it does not remain our rule of action, to which it 
is our duty to be personally conformed. The question of per- 



538 SANCTIFICA TION. 

fection is one which relates to our personal character, not to 
our relations; it is moral and inherent, and not forensic. To 
prove, therefore, what we also rejoice to believe, that the orig- 
inal law of God, under the gospel covenant, is no longer our 
condition of salvation, does not avail one iota towards proving 
that God, under the gospel, demands an obedience adjusted to 
any easier standard than was required before. 

2d. This theory is part of the Arminian view of the covenant 
of grace, which we regard so inconsistent with the gospel, and 
which Mr. Watson (see "Institutes," Part II., Chap, xxiii.) ap- 
pears to attempt to avoid while refusing to admit the imputa- 
tion to the believer of Christ's righteousness. This view is, 
that by Christ's propitiation, he having fulfilled the original 
law of God, it is made consistent with divine justice to present 
salvation upon easier conditions, i. e., faith and evangelical obe- 
dience; Christian perfection requiring nothing more than the 
perfect fulfilment of these new gracious conditions. Now this 
view, besides confounding the ideas of law, and of covenant, 
of a rule, and of a condition, of a ground of justification, and 
of a standard of sanctification, is inconsistent with the broad 
teachings of the gospel concerning the righteousness of Christ, 
and the office of faith in justification. It makes the merit of 
Christ only in some uncertain and distant way the occasion 
of our salvation, and faith, and evangelical obedience, in the 
place of perfect obedience under the old covenant, the ground 
instead of the mere instrument and fruit of our justification. 
Logically developed, this theory must lead to the Eomish doc- 
trine as to the merit of good works. 

3d. This theory denies that mistakes and infirmities result- 
ing from the effects of original sin, are themselves sin, yet 
admits that they are to be confessed, forgiveness implored for 
them, and the atonement of Christ's blood applied to them, and 
that the more perfect a man becomes the more he abhors his 
own internal state. Surely this is a confusion of language, and 
abuse of the word sin. What is sin but (1) that which trans- 
gresses God's original law, (2) which needs Christ's atonement, 
(3) which should be confessed, and must be forgiven, (4) which 
lays a proper foundation for self-abhorrence. 

40. What express declarations of Scripture are contradicted by 
every possible modification of the theory of Christian perfection? 

1 Kings viii. 46 ; Pro v. xx. 9 ; Eccle. vii. 20 ; James iii. 2 ; 1 
John i. 8. 

41. How may it be shoivn to be in opposition to the experience 
of saints, as recorded in the Scriptures ? 



PERFECTIONISM DISPROVED. 539 

See Paul's account of himself, Rom. vii. 14-25 ; Phil. iii. 12-14. 
See case of David, Ps. xix. 12; Ps. li. ; of Moses, Ps. xc. 8; of 
Job, Job xlii. 5, 6; of Daniel, ix. 20. See Luke xviii. 13; 
Gal. ii. 11-13; vi. 1; James v. 16. 

42. How does it conflict with tlie ordinary experience of Gods 
people ? 

The more holy a man is, the more humble, self-renouncing, 
self-abhorring, and the more sensitive to every sin he becomes, 
and the more closely he clings to Christ. The moral imperfec- 
tions which cling to him he feels to be sins, laments and strives 
to overcome them. Believers find that their life is a constant 
warfare, and they need to take the kingdom of heaven by storm, 
and watch while they pray. They are always subject to the con- 
stant chastisement of their Father's loving hand, which can only 
be designed to correct their imperfections, and to confirm their 
graces. And it has been notoriously the fact that the best 
Christians have been those who have been the least prone to 
claim the attainment of perfection for themselves. 

43. What are the legitimate practical effects of perfectionism ? 

The tendency of every such doctrine must be evil, except 
in so far as it is modified or counteracted by limiting or incon- 
sistent truths held in connection, which is pre-eminently the 
case with respect to the Wesley an view, from the amount of 
pure gospel which in that instance the figment of perfectionism 
alloys. But perfectionism, by itself, must tend, 1st, to low 
views of God's law; 2d, to inadequate views of the heinousness 
of sin ; 3d, to a low standard of moral excellence ; 4th, to spir- 
itual pride and fanaticism. 

Authoritative Statements of Church Docttne. 

Eomish Doctrine as to the moral perfection of the Regenerate, 
as to Good Works, and Works of Supererogation. As to their view 
of the merit of good works, see above, Chap. XXXIII. 

"Cone. Trident. ," Sess. 5, can. 5. — "If any one denies, that, by the 
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt 
of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which 
has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it 

is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema But 

this holy Synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there 
remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin). . . . This concu- 
piscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares 
that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as 
being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, 
and inclines to sin. If any man is of a contrary sentiment, let him be 
anathema." 



540 SANCTIFICA TION. 

"Cone. Trident ," Sess. 6, can. 18. — "If any one says that the com- 
mandments of God, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, 
are impossible to keep, let him be anathema." 

Bellarmin, "De Juslijic," iv. 10, sqq. — "If precepts are impossible, 
they oblige no one, and hence the precepts are not precepts. Neither 
is it possible to devise wherein any one sins in respect to that which it is 
impossible to avoid." 

Ibid, "De Monachis," cap. 7. — "A 'council of perfection' we call a 
good work, not commanded us by Christ, but declared; not appointed 
but commended. But it differs from a precept in respect to its matter, 
subject, form, and end. (1.) In respect to their matter (the difference) 
is twofold. First, because the matter of the precept is easier, that of the 
counsel more difficult, for the former is derived from the principles of 
nature, while the latter in some sense exceeds nature, e. g., for nature 
inclines to the preservation of conjugal fidelity, but not to abstaining 
from the conjugal relation. Secondly, because the matter of the precej)t 
is good . . . for the council includes the precept, which relates to 
the same matter, and adds something beyond the precept. (2.) In re- 
spect to the subject, precepts and counsels differ, because the precept 
binds all men in common, while the counsel does not. (3.) In respect 
to their form they differ, because the precept binds of its own inherent 
obligation, but the counsel through the will of man. (4.) In respect to 
their end or effects they differ, because the precept observed has a reward, 
but when not observed a penalty, but the counsel when not observed has 
no penalty, but when observed has the greater reward." Cap. 8. — "It 
is the opinion of all Catholics that there are many true and proper evan- 
gelical counsels, but especially, viz., celibacy, poverty, and obedience 
(monastic), which are neither commanded to all, nor matters of indiffer- 
ence, but grateful to God and by him commended (Matt. xix. 11, sq., 21; 
ICor. vii. 1-7)." 

LUTHEEAN DOCTEINE. 

"Apology for Augburg Conf." p. 91. — "The entire Scripture and the 
whole church declare that the Law can not be satisfied (by any thing 
within man's power since the fall). This incomplete fulfilling of the law 
is accepted, not on its own account, but only through faith in Christ. 
Otherwise the Law always accuses us. . . In this infirmity there is 
always sin, which may be charged to our account (for condemnation)." 

"Formula Concordia?" p. 678. — "The papal and monastic doctrine, 
that a man after he is regenerated is able perfectly to fulfil the law of 
God in this life, is to be rejected." 

lb., p. 589. — "Our Confession is, that good works most surely and 
indubitably follow a true faith, as the fruits of a good tree. We also 
believe that good works are entirely to be left out of account, not only 
when we are treating of justification, but even when we are debating con- 
cerning our eternal life." 

lb., p. 700. — "Because those are not good works, which anyone him- 
self devises with good intention, or which are done according to human 
traditions ; but those which God himself has prescribed and ordered in 
his own word. Because works truly good can be performed, not by the 
proper natural powers, but then only when the person is, by faith, recon- 
ciled with God, and is renewed by the Spirit, and is created anew to good 
works, in Jesus Christ." 

Kefoemkd Docteine. 

"Heidelberg Catechism," Q. 62. — "Our best works in the present life 
are all imperfect and stained with sin." 



AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS. 541 

"Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England '," Art. 12. — "Albeit that 
Good Works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after Justification, 
can not put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment ; 
yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out 
necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that by them a lively faith 
may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit." 

lb., Art. 14. — " Voluntary works besides, over and above, God's com- 
mandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, can not be taught 
without arrogancy and impiety; for by them men do declare that they do 
not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they 
do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ 
saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, 
We are unprofitable servants." 

"Confess. Helvetica posterior " p. 498. — "We teach that God gives an 
ample reward to those doing good works. Yet we refer this reward that 
the Lord gives, not to the merit of the men receiving it, but to the 
goodness, liberality, and truth of God, who promises and bestows it ; 
who, while he owes nothing to any one, yet has promised that he will 
give a reward to his faithful worshippers. " 

"West. Conf. of Faith" ch. 16, \ 4. — "They who in their obedience 
attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from 
being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, that they 
fall short of much, which in their duty they are bound to do " (see the 
whole chapter). 

lb., chap. 13, \ 2. — "This sanctification is throughout in the whole 
man, yet imperfect in this life : there abideth still some remnants of cor- 
ruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, 
the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh." 
\ 3. — " In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may 
much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from the 
sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome : and so 
the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. " 



CHAPTER XXXVI. 

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 

1. What is the Scriptural doctrine as to the perseverance of the 
saints ? 

"They whom God hath accepted in his beloved, effectively 
called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally 
fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere 
therein to the end, and be eternally saved." — "Con. Faith,"' 
Chap. xvii. ; "L. Cat," Question 79. 

2. By what arguments may the certainty of the final perseverance 
of the saints be established. 

1st. The direct assertions of Scripture. — John x. 28, 29 ; Eom. 
xi. 29; Phil. i. 6; 1 Pet. i. 5. 

2d. This certainty is a necessary inference, from the Scrip- 
tural doctrine (1) of election, Jer. xxxi. 3; Matt. xxiv. 22-24; 
Acts xiii. 48 ; Eom. viii. 30 ; (2) of the covenant of grace, 
wherein the Father gave his people to his Son as the reward 
of his obedience and suffering, Jer. xxxii. 40; John xvii. 2-6; 
(3) of the union of Christians with Christ, in the federal aspect 
of which Christ is their surety, and they can not fail (Rom. 
viii. 1), and in the spiritual and vital aspect of which they abide 
in him, and because he lives they must live also, John xiv. 19 ; 
Rom. viii. 38, 39; Gal. ii. 20; (4) of the atonement, wherein 
Christ discharged all the obligations of his people to the law 
as a covenant of life, and purchased for them all covenanted 
blessings; if one of them should fail, therefore, the sure founda- 
tion of all would be shaken, Is. liii. 6, 11; Matt, xx. 28; 1 Pet. 
ii. 24; (5) of justification, which declares all the conditions of 
the covenant of life satisfied, and sets its subject into a new 
relation to God for all future time, so that he can not fall under 
condemnation, since he is not under the law, but under grace, 
Rom. vi. 14; (6) of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, (a) as a 
seal by which we are marked as belonging to God, (b) as an 



OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 543 

earnest, or first instalment of the promised redemption, in 
pledge of complete fulfilment, John xiv. 16; 2 Cor. i. 21, 22; 
v. 5; Eph. i. 14; (7) of the pre valency of Christ's intercession. 
John xi. 42; xvii. 11, 15, 20; Kom. viii. 34. 

3. What is the doctrine of the Romish Church on this subject ? 

"Council of Trent," Sess. vi., Canon 23. "If any one main- 
tain that a man once justified can not lose grace, and, therefore, 
that he who falls and sins never was truly justified, let him be 
accursed." — See below, under Romish doctrine in this chapter, 
their view as to "venial sins." 

4. What is the Arminian doctrine on this point ? 

It is an inseparable part of the Arminian system, flowing 
necessarily from their views of election, of the design and 
effect of Christ's death, and of sufficient grace and free will, 
that those who were once justified and regenerated may, by 
neglecting grace and grieving the Holy Spirit, fall into such 
sins as are inconsistent with true justifying faith, and continu- 
ing and dying in the same, may consequently finally fall into 
perdition. — "Confession of the Remonstrants," xi. 7. The Lu- 
therans and the Arminians agree on this point. They both 
believe that the "elect" (those whom God has chosen to eter- 
nal life because he has certainly foreseen their perseverance in 
faith and obedience to the end) can not finally apostatize. The 
true question between them and the Calvinists, therefore, is not 
whether the "elect," but whether those once truly "regenerate 
and justified" can finally apostatize and perish. 

5. What objection is urged against tJie orthodox doctrine on the 
ground of the free agency of man ? 

Those who deny the certainty of the final perseverance of 
the saints hold the false theory that liberty of the will consists 
in indifference, or the power of contrary choice, and conse- 
quently that certainty is inconsistent with liberty. This fal- 
lacy is disproved above, Chap. XV., see especially Ques. 25, 26. 

That God does govern the free acts of his creatures, as a 
matter of fact, is clear from history and prophecy, from uni- 
versal Christian consciousness and experience, and from Script- 
ure.— Acts ii. 23; Eph. i. 11; Phil. ii. 13; Prov. xxi. 1. 

That he does secure the final perseverance of his people in a 
manner perfectly consistent with their free agency is also clear. 
He changes their affections and thus determines the will by its 
own free spontaniety. He brings them into the position of 
children by adoption, surrounding them with all of the sources 
and instruments of sanctifying influence, and when they sin he 



544 PERSEVERANCE. 

carefully chastises and restores them. Hence the doctrine of 
Scripture is not that a man who has once truly believed is 
secure of ultimate salvation, subsequently feel and act as he 
may; but, on the contrary, that God secures the ultimate sal- 
vation of every one who is once truly united to his Son by 
faith, by securing, through the power of the Holy Ghost, his 
most free perseverance in Christian feeling and obedience to 
the end. 

6. What objection is urged against the orthodox doctrine upon 
the ground of its supposed unfavorable influence upon morality ? 

The objection charged is, that this doctrine, " once in grace 
always in grace," must naturally lead to carelessness, through 
a false sense of security in our present position, and of confi- 
dence that God will secure our final salvation independently 
of our own agency. 

Although it is certain, on the part of God, that if we are 
elected and called, we shall be saved; yet it requires constant 
watchfulness, and diligence, and prayer to make that calling 
and election sure to us. — 2 Pet. i. 10. That God powerfully 
works with us, and therefore secures for us success in our con- 
test with sin, is in Scripture urged as a powerful reason not for 
sloth, but for diligence. — Phil. ii. 13. The orthodox doctrine 
does not affirm certainty of salvation because we have once 
believed, but certainty of perseverance in holiness if we have 
truly believed, which perseverance in holiness, therefore, in 
opposition to all weaknesses and temptations, is the only sure 
evidence of the genuineness of past experience, or of the validity 
of our confidence as to our future salvation, and surely such an 
assurance of certainty can not encourage either carelessness or 
immorality. 

7. What objection to this doctrine is founded on the exhortations 
to diligence; and on the warnings of danger in case of carelessness, 
addressed to believers in the Scriptures? 

The objection alleged is, that these exhortations and warn- 
ings necessarily imply the contingency of the believer's salva- 
tion, as conditioned upon the believer's continued faithfulness, 
and consequently involving liability to apostasy. 

We answer — 

1st. The outward word necessarily comes to all men alike, 
addressing them in the classes in which they regard themselves 
as standing; and as professors, or "those who think they stand," 
are many of them self-deceived, this outward word truly implies 
the uncertainty of their position (as far as man's knowledge 
goes), and their liability to fall. 



OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 545 

2d. That God secures the perseverance in holiness of all 
his true people by the use of means adapted to their nature as 
rational, moral, and free agents. Viewed in themselves they 
are always, as God warns them, unstable, and therefore, as he 
exhorts them, they must diligently cleave to his grace. It 
is always true, also, that if they apostatize they shall be lost ; 
but by means of these very threatenings his Spirit graciously 
secures them from apostasy. 

8. What special texts are relied upon to rebut the arguments of 
the orthodox upon this subject ? 

Ezekxviii. 24; Matt. xiii. 20, 21; 2 Pet. ii. 20, 21, and espe- 
cially Heb. vi. 4-6; x. 26. 

All of these passages may be naturally explained in perfect 
consistency with the orthodox doctrine which is supported upon 
that wide range of Scripture evidence we have set forth above, 
Question 2. They present either, 1st, hypothetical warnings 
of the consequences of apostasy with the design of preventing 
it, by showing the natural consequences of indifference and of 
sin, and the necessity for earnest care and effort ; or, 2d, they 
indicate the dreadful consequences of misimproving or of abus- 
ing the influences of common grace, which, although involving 
great responsibility, nevertheless come short of a radical change 
of nature or genuine conversion. 

9. What argument do the opponents of this doctrine urge from 
Bible examples and from our own daily experience of apostates ? 

They cite from the Scriptures such instances as that of David 
and Peter, and they refer to the many examples of the apos- 
tasy of well-accredited professors, with which, alas ! we are all 
familiar. 

All these examples, however, fall evidently under one of 
two classes, either, 1st, they were from the beginning without 
the real power of godliness, although bearing so fair an appear- 
ance of life in the sight of their fellow-men, Rom. ii. 28 ; ix. 6 ; 
1 John ii. 19; Rev. hi. 1; or, 2d, they are true believers Avho, 
because of the temporary withdrawal of restraining grace, have 
been allowed to backslide for a time, while in every such case 
they are graciously restored, and that generally by chastise- 
ment. — Rev. iii. 19. Of this class were David and Peter. No 
true Christian is capable of deliberate apostasy; his furthest 
departure from righteousness being occasioned by the sudden 
impulse of passion or fear. — Matt. xxiv. 24 ; Luke xxii. 31. 



546 PERSEVERANCE. 



Authoritative Statements of Church Doctrine. 

Romish Doctrine. 

"Cone. Trident.," Sess. 6, ch. 15. — "It is to be maintained that the 
received grace of justification is lost, not only by infidelity, whereby 
even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though 
faith be not lost." 

lb., can. 23. — "If any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no 
more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never 
truly justified ... let him be anathema. " 

lb., chap. 11. — "For, although, during this mortal life, men how 
holy and just soever, at times fall at least into light and daily sins, 
which are also called venial, not therefore do they cease to be just. " 

lb., Sess. 14, ch. 5. — "For venial sins, whereby we are not excluded 
from the grace of God, and into which we fall more frequently, although 
they be rightly and profitably, and without any presumption, declared in 
confession, as the custom of pious persons demonstrates, yet may they 
be omitted without guilt, and be expiated by many other remedies. But, 
whereas all mortal sins, even those of thought, render men children of 
wrath, and enemies of God, it is necessary to seek also for the pardon of 
them all from God, with a modest and open confession. " 

Bellarmin, " De Amiss. Gra." Sess. 14, cap. 5. — " (1.) Venial sin is 
distinguished from mortal sin, as of its own nature, and without any 
relation to the predestination or the mercy of God, or to the state of the 
regenerate, deserving a certain but not an eternal punishment. (2. ) These 
sins are either venial from their own nature, having for their object a 
thing evil and inordinate, but which does not oppose the love of God and 
of our neighbor — as an idle word, or they are venial from the imperfec- 
tion of the action, i. e., (a) such as are not perfectly voluntary (delib- 
erate), as arising from a sudden movement of cupidity or anger, and 
(b) such as relate to trifles, as the theft of one obolus." 

Lutheran Doctrine. 

"Formula Concordio?" p. 705. — "That false opinion is to be earnestly 
confuted and rejected, which certain feign, that faith, and realized jus- 
tification, and salvation itself, can not be lost by any sins or crimes 
whatsoever." 

lb., p. 591. — "We condemn that dogma, that faith in Christ is not 
lost, and that the Holy Spirit continues to dwell none the less in a man, 
although he knowingly and willingly sins, and that the sanctified and 
elect retain the Holy Spirit, although they fall into adulteries or other 
crimes, and persevere in them." 

"Apol Aug. Con/.," p. 71. — "Faith can not coexist with mortal sin." 

lb., p. 86. — " That faith, which receives remission of sins . . does 
not remain in those who indulge their lusts, neither can it coexist with 
mortal sin. " 

Reformed Doctrine. 

" Can. of the Synod of Dort," ch. 5, c. 3. — "Because of the remains 
of indwelling sin . . . the converted could not continue in this 
grace, if they were left to their own strength. But God is faithful, who 
confirms them in the grace once mercifully conferred on them, and pow- 
erfully preserves them in the same, even unto the end. Can. 4. — But 
though that power of God, confirming the truly faithful in grace, and 
preserving them, is greater than what can be overcome by the flesh, yet 
the converted are not always so influenced and moved by God, that they 
can not depart in certain particular actions, from the leading of grace, 



AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS. 547 

and be seduced by the lusts of the flesh, and obey them. They may fall 

even into grievous and atrocious sins Can. 5. — But by such 

enormous sins they exceedingly offend God, they incur the guilt of 
death, they grieve the Holy Spirit, they interrupt the exercise of faith, 
they most grievously wound conscience, and they sometimes lose for a 
time the sense of grace, until by serious repentance returning into the 
way, the paternal countenance of God again shines upon them. Can. 6. 
For God, who is rich in mercy, from his immutable purpose of election, 
does not wholly take away his Holy Spirit from his own, even in lamen- 
table falls, nor does he so permit them to glide down that they should 
fall from the grace of adoption, and the state of justification, or commit 
the sin unto death, or against the Holy Spirit, that being deserted by 
him, they should cast themselves headlong into eternal destruction. . . 
Can. 8. — So that not by their own merits or strength, but by the gratui- 
tous mercy of God they (the elect) obtain it, that they neither totally 
fall from faith and grace, nor finally continue in their falls and perish." 
" West. Conf. Faith," ch. 17, § 1.— " They whom God hath accepted 
in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither 
totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly 
persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. $ 2. — This perse- 
verance of the saints depends not upon their own free-will, but upon the 
immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and un- 
changeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and 
intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of 
God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all 
which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof." 



XXXVII. 

DEATH, AND THE STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 

1. What department of theology are we now entering, and what 
subjects are embraced in it ? 

The department of Eschatology or the discussion of last 
things tcL edxara. It embraces the subjects of death, the state 
of the soul after death, the second advent of Christ, the resur- 
rection of the dead, the final judgment, the end of the world, 
heaven and hell. 

2. By what forms of expression is death described in the Bible ? 

A departure out of this world. — 2 Tim. iv. 6. A going the 
way of all the earth. — Josh, xxiii. 14. A being gathered to 
one's fathers, Judges ii. 10; and to one's people, Deut. xxxii. 
50. A dissolving the earthly house of this tabernacle. — 2 Cor. 
v. 1. A returning to the dust. — Eccle. xii. 7. A sleep. — John 
xi. 11. A giving up the ghost. — Acts v. 10. A being absent 
from the body and present with the Lord. — 2 Cor. v. 8. Sleep- 
ing in Jesus. — 1 Thess. iv. 14 

3. What is death ? 

The suspension of the personal union between the body 
and the soul, followed by the resolution of the body^ into its 
chemical elements, and the introduction of the soul into that 
separate state of existence which may be assigned to it by its 
Creator and Judge. — Eccle. xii. 7. 

4. How does death stand related to sin ? 

The entire penalty of the law, including all the spiritual, 
physical, and eternal penal consequences of sin, is called death 
in Scripture. The sentence was, "The day thou eatest thereof 
thou shalt surely die." — Gen. ii. 17; Kom. v. 12. That this in- 
cluded natural death is proved by Eom. v. 13, 14; and from 
the fact that when Christ bore the penalty of the law it was 
necessary for him to die. — Heb. ix. 22. 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 549 

5. Why do the justified die? 

Justification changes the entire federal relation of its sub- 
ject to the law, and raises him forever above all the penal con- 
sequences of sin. Death, therefore, while remaining a part of 
the penalty of the unsatisfied law in relation to the unjust, is 
like all other afflictions changed, in relation to the justified, 
into an element of improving discipline. It is made necessary 
for them from the present constitution of the body, while it is 
to both body and soul the gateway of heaven. They are made 
free from its sting and fear. — 1 Cor. xv. 55, 57; Heb. ii. 15. 
They are now "blessed" in death because they die "in the 
Lord," Rev. xiv. 13, and they shall at last be completely deliv- 
ered from its power when the last enemy shall be destroyed. 
1 Cor. xv. 26. 

6. What evidence have we of the immateriality of tlve soul, and 
what argument may be derived from that source in proof of its con- 
tinued existence after death ? 

For the evidence establishing the immateriality of the soul 
see Chap. II., Question 18. 

Now although the continued existence of any creature must 
depend simply upon the will of its Creator, that w^ill may either 
be made known by direct revelation, or inferred in any partic- 
ular instance by analogical reasoning from what is known of 
his doings in other cases. As far as this argument from anal- 
ogy goes it decidedly confirms the belief that a spiritual sub- 
stance is, as such, immortal. The entire range of human ex- 
perience fails to make us acquainted with a single instance of 
the annihilation of an atom of matter, i. e., of matter as such. 
Material bodies, organized or chemically compounded, or mere 
mechanical aggregations, we observe constantly coming into 
existence, and in turn passing away, yet never through the an- 
nihilation of their elementary constituents or component parts, 
but simply from the dissolution of that relation which these 
parts had temporarily sustained to each other. Spirit, how- 
ever, is essentially simple and single, and therefore incapable 
of that dissolution of parts to which material bodies are subject. 
We infer, therefore, that spirits are immortal since they can 
not be subject to that only form of death of which we have 
any knowledge. 

7. What argument in favor of the immortality of the soul may 
be derived from its imperfect development in this world ? 

In every department of organized life every individual crea- 
ture, in its normal state, tends to grow toward a condition 



550 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 

of complete development, which is the perfection of its kind. 
The acorn both prophesies and grows toward the oak. Every 
human being, however, is conscious that in this life he never 
attains that completeness which the Creator contemplated in 
the ideal of his type ; he has faculties undeveloped, capacities 
unfulfilled, natural desires unsatisfied; he knows he was de- 
signed to be much more than he is, and to fill a much higher 
sphere. As the prophetic reason of the Creator makes provi- 
sion for the butterfly through the instinct of the caterpillar, so 
the same Creator reveals the immortal existence of the soul in 
a higher sphere by means of its conscious limitations and in- 
stinctive movements in this. 

8. What argument on this subject may be derived from the dis- 
tributive justice of God? 

It is an invariable judgment of natural reason, and a funda- 
mental doctrine of the Bible, that moral good is associated with 
happiness, and moral evil with misery, by the unchangeable 
nature and purpose of God. But the history of all individuals 
and communities alike establishes the fact that this life is not 
a state of retribution ; that here wickedness is often associated 
with prosperity, and moral excellence with sorrow; we must 
hence conclude that there is a future state in which all that 
appears at present inconsistent with the justice of God shall 
be adjusted. — See Ps. lxxiii. 

9. Hoiv do the operations of conscience point to a future state ? 

Conscience is the voice of God in the soul, which witnesses 
to our sinfulness and ill-desert, and to his essential justice. 
Except in the case of those who have found refuge in the 
righteousness of Christ, every man feels that his moral rela- 
tions to God are never settled in this life, and hence the char- 
acteristic testimony of the human conscience, in spite of great 
individual differences as to light, sensibility, etc., has always 
been coincident with the word of God, that " after death comes 

the JUDGMENT." 

10. How is this doctrine established by the general consent of 
mankind ? 

This has been the universal faith of all men, of all races, 
and in all ages. Universal consent, like every universal effect, 
must be referred to an equally universal cause, and this con- 
sent, uniform among men differing in every other possible re- 
spect, can be referred to no common origin other than the con- 
stitution of man's common nature, which is the testimony of 
his Maker. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT DOCTRINE. 551 

11. Show that the Old Testament teaches the same distinction 
between soul and body that is taught in the New Testament. 

1st. In the account of the creation. The body was formed 
of the dust of the earth, and the soul in the image of the Al- 
mighty. — Gen. i. 26; ii. 7. 

2d. In the definition of death. — Eccle. xii. 7. " Then shall 
the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall re- 
turn to God who gave it." — See also Eccle. iii. 21. 

12. What does the Old Testament teach concerning Sheol ? and 
how is it shown, from tJie usage of that word, that the immortality 
of the soul was a doctrine of the ancient covenant? 

Sheol is derived from the verb bx&> to ask, expressing the 
sense of our English proverb, that the "grave crieth give, give." 
It is used in the Old Testament to signify, in a vague and gen- 
eral sense, the state of the departed, both the good and bad, 
intermediate between death and the resurrection of the right- 
eous (Hosea xiii. 14), generally invested with gloomy associa- 
tions, and indefinitely referred to the lower parts of the earth. 
Deut. xxxii. 22 ; Amos ix. 2. Thus it is used for grave as the 
receptacle of the body after death (Gen. xxxvii. 35; Job xiv. 13), 
but principally to designate the receptacle of departed spirits, 
without explicit reference to any division between the stations 
allotted to the righteous and the wicked. That they were active 
and conscious in this state appears to be indicated by what is 
revealed of Samuel. — 1 Sam. xxviii. 7-20; Is. xiv. 15-17. With 
regard to the good, however, the residence in Sheol was looked 
upon only as intermediate between death and a happy resur- 
rection. — Ps. xlix. 15. In their treatment of this whole subject, 
the Old Testament Scriptures rather take the continued exist- 
ence of the soul for granted, than explicitly assert it. — Fair- 
bairn's "Herm. Manual"; "Josephus' Ant.," xviii., 1. 

13. What is the purport of our Saviours argument on this sub- 
ject against the Sadducees ? 

Luke xx. 37, 38. Long after the death of Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob, Jehovah designated himself to Moses as their God. 
Ex. iii. 6. But, argues Christ against the Sadducee who denied 
the resurrection of the dead, " he is the God, not of the dead, 
but of the living." This more immediately proves the immor- 
tality of their souls, but as God is the covenant God of persons, 
and as the persons of these patriarchs included alike body and 
soul, this argument likewise establishes the ultimate immor- 
tality of the body also, i. e., of the entire person. 



552 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 

14. What passages of the Old Testament assert or imply the 
hope of a state of blessedness after death ? 

Num. xxiii. 10; Job xix. 26, 27; Ps. xvi. 9-11; xvii. 15; 
xlix. 14, 15; lxxiii. 24-26; Is. xxv. 8; xxvi. 19; Hosea xiii. 14; 
Dan. xii. 2, 3, 13. 

15. What other evidence does the Old Testament afford of the 
continued existence of the soul ? 

1st. The translations of Enoch and Elijah, and the tempo- 
rary reappearance of Samuel. — Gen. v. 24 ; Heb. xi. 5 ; 2 Kings 
ii. 11; 1 Sam. xxviii. 7-20. 

2d. The command to abstain from the arts of necromancy 
implies the prevalent existence of a belief that the dead still 
continue in being in another state. — Deut. xviii. 11, 12. 

3d. In their symbolical system Canaan represents the per- 
manent inheritance of Christ's people, and the entire purpose 
of the whole Old Testament revelation, as apprehended by Old 
Testament believers, had respect to a future existence and in- 
heritance after deaMi. This is directly asserted in the New 
Testament. — Acts xxvi. 6-8 ; Heb. xi. 10-16 ; Eph. i. 14. 

16. What does the New Testament teach of the state of the soul 
immediately after death ? 

"The souls of the righteous, being made perfect in holiness, 
are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the 
face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption 
of their bodies." — Luke xxiii. 43; 2 Cor. v. 6, 8; Phil. i. 23, 24. 
"And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they re- 
main in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment 
of the great day." — Luke xvi. 23, 24; Jude v. 6, 7. "Confes- 
sion of Faith," Chap, xxxii., § 1. 

This statement represents the doctrine of the Lutheran and 
Reformed churches. 

It includes the following points: 1st. The state of souls 
between death and the resurrection may properly be called 
intermediate when viewed with relation to the states which 
precede and follow. 2d. Whether there be also an intermedi- 
ate place or not the Scriptures do not definitely declare, but 
the}' suggest it. — See below, Ch. XL., Ques. 3. 3d. The souls 
both of the righteous and the lost continue during this state 
active and conscious. 4th. The moral and spiritual character 
and destiny of each is irrevocably decided at death either for 
good or evil. 5th. The righteous are immediately made per- 
fect in holiness. 6th. They pass at once and remain during 
the whole period in the presence of Christ. 7th. This interme- 



HADES, PARADISE, AND GEHENNA. 553 

diate differs from the final state of the redeemed — (1.) Because 
of the absence of the body. (2.) Because redemption is not yet 
realized in its final stage. 

17. What is the signification and usage of the word ai8r/s, Hades, 
in Scripture? 

"AiSjjs, from a primitive, and iSeiv, designates generally the 
invisible world inhabited by the spirits of dead men. .Among 
the ancient classical heathen, this invisible world was regarded 
as consisting of two contrasted regions, the one called Elysium, 
the abode of the blessed good, and the other Tartarus, the abode 
of the vicious and miserable. 

It was used by the authors of the Septuagint to translate 
the Hebrew word Sheol, compare Acts ii. 27, and Ps. xvi. 10. 
In the New Testament this word occurs only eleven times. 
Matt. xi. 23; xvi. 18; Luke x. 15; xvi. 23; Acts ii. 27, 31; 
1 Cor. xv. 55 ; Eev. i. 18 ; vi. 8 ; xx. 13, 14. In every case, 
except 1 Cor. xv. 55, where the more critical editions of the 
original substitute the word Solvate in the place of a8ij t hades 
is translated hell, and certainly always represents the invisible 
world as under the dominion of Satan, as opposed to the king- 
dom of Christ, and as finally subdued under his victorious 
power. See Fairbairn's " Herm. Manual." 

18. What is the signification and usage of the words itapddeitios 
and yeevva? 

IlapddEitioS, Paradise, derived from some oriental language, 
and adopted into both the Hebrew and Greek languages, sig- 
nifies parks, pleasure gardens. — Neh. ii; 8; Eccle. ii. 5. The 
Septuagint translators use this word to represent the garden 
of Eden. — Gen. ii. 8, etc. It occurs only three times in the New 
Testament, Luke xxiii. 43 ; 2 Cor. xii. 4 ; Eev. ii. 7 ; where the 
context proves that it refers to the " third heavens," the garden 
of the Lord, in which grows the " tree of life," which is by the 
river which flows out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 
Kev. xxii. 1, 2. 

reevva is a compound Hebrew word, expressed in Greek 
letters, signifying "Valley of Hinnom, Josh. xv. 8, skirting 
Jerusalem on the south, running westward from the valley of 
Jehosaphat, under Mount Zion. Here was established the idol- 
atrous worship of Moloch, to whom infants were burned in sac- 
rifice. — 1 Kings xi. 7. This worship was broken up and the place 
desecrated by Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii. 10-14, after which it appears 
to have become the receptacle for all the filth of the city, and 
of the dead bodies of animals, and of malefactors, to consume 
which fires would appear to have been from time to time kept 



554 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 

up, hence called Tophet, an abomination, a vomit, Jer. vii. 31." 
Kobinson's " Greek Lex." By a natural figure, therefore, this 
word was used to designate the place of final punishment, forci- 
bly carrying with it the idea of pollution and misery. It occurs 
twelve times in the New Testament, and always to signify the 
place of final torment. — Matt. v. 22, 29, 30; x. 28; xviii. 9; 
xxiii. 15, 33 ; Mark ix. 43, 47 ; Luke xii. 5 ; James iii. 6. 

19. What various views are maintained as to the intermediate 
state of the souls of men between death and the judgment ? 

1st. Many Protestants, especially of the Church of England, 
retaining the classical sense of the word Hades, as equivalent 
to the Jewish Sheol (as given above, Question 12), hold that 
there is an intermediate region, consisting of two distinct de- 
partments, in one or other of which the disembodied souls, both 
of the lost and of the redeemed, respectively await the resur- 
rection of their bodies, the award of judgment, and their trans- 
lation to their final abodes of bliss or misery. They differ from 
the common Protestant doctrine chiefly — (1.) In positively as- 
serting that the place as well as the state is intermediate. 
(2.) In asserting that it is situated "under" in respect to this 
world. (3.) In holding that it is not the "highest heavens" 
where God manifests his special presence, and where Christ 
habitually abides. — See the Rev. E. H. Bickersteth's "Yesterday, 
To-day, and Forever," and " Hades and Heaven, or State of the 
Blessed Dead." 

2d. For the complete statement of the doctrine of the Ro- 
manists, see below, Question 22. 

3d. Materialists and some Socinians hold that the souls of 
men remain in a state of unconsciousness or suspended life from 
death until the moment of the resurrection. 

This opinion is also held by the advocates of the ultimate 
annihilation of the wicked, and advocated most ably by C. F. 
Hudson in America, and as probable by the late Archbishop 
Whately in England (" View of Sc. Concerning a Future State"). 

The arguments are — (1) We have no experience and can 
form no conception of conscious mental activity in a disem- 
bodied state. (2.) That the Scriptural evidence relied upon for 
the support of the church doctrine is obscure and inconclusive. 
(3.) That the original and simple meaning of the word death is 
"extinction of being." God said to Adam, "The day thou eat- 
est thereof thou," not thy body, but thyself, "shall surely die." 
Matt. x. 28. (4.) That the great prominence afforded in the 
New Testament to the future resurrection of the body, as the 
effect of redemption, and the object of Christian hope, proves 
that the only future life the apostles expected was subsequent 



THE SOUL CONSCIOUS AND ACTIVE. 555 

to and dependent upon that event. — 1 Cor. xv. 14. (5.) They 
quote many passages to prove that the Scriptures teach that 
the dead remain at present in a state of bodily and spiritual 
inactivity. — Ps. vi. 5. "For in death there is no remembrance 
of thee, in the grave who shall give thee thanks." — Ps. cxlvi. 4; 
Jer. li. 57. 

This doctrine was first taught by certain heretics in Arabia 
in the time of Origen, called Thnetopsychites. It was revived 
as an opinion of some theologians in the thirteenth and four- 
teenth centuries, but condemned by the University of Paris, 
1240, and by Pope Benedict XIL, 1366. It was revived by 
some Anabaptist and refuted by Calvin in his "Psychopan- 
nychia, etc." It has never been held by any church or per- 
manent school of theologians. 

Isaac Taylor, in his " Physical Theory of Another Life," ch. 
17, concludes, purely on Biblical grounds, that the intermediate 
state of redeemed souls is one " not of unconsciousness indeed, 
but of comparative inaction, or of suspended energy. A tran- 
sition state during the continuance of which the passive facul- 
ties of our nature rather than the active are to awake." 

20. State the Scriptural grounds upon which the Protestant 
doctrine stated above, Ques. 16, rests. 

1st. The reappearance of Samuel in the use of all his facul- 
ties. — 1 Sam. xxviii. 7-20. The appearance of Moses and Elias 
at the transfiguration of Christ on the mount. — Matt. xvii. 3. 
Christ's address to the thief upon the cross. — Luke xxiii. 43. 
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus. — Luke xvi. 23, 24. 
The prayer of dying Stephen. — Acts vii. 59. In 2 Cor. v. 1-8 
Paul declares that to be at home in the body is to be absent 
from the Lord, and to be absent from the body is to be present 
with the Lord, and hence he says (Phil. i. 21-24) that for him 
to die is gain, and that he was in a strait betwixt two, "having 
a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better, never- 
theless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." He de- 
clares (1 Thess. v. 10) that the sleep of death is a living together 
with Christ— See also Eph. iii. 15; Heb. vi. 12-20; Acts i. 25; 
Jude 6, 7; Heb. xii. 23; Rev. v. 9; vi. 9-11; vii. 9, and xiv. 1, 3. 

21. How can it be shoivn that the Intermediate State does not 
afford a further probation for those who depart from this life out 
of Christ ? 

An opinion is becoming prevalent among some classes of 
Protestants that another opportunity for repentance and faith 
will be afforded to Christless souls between death and the res- 
urrection. That this is unfounded appears — 1st. From the fact 



556 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 

that it is nowhere taught in Scripture. It is a hope at best 
suggested by the wish, but without any foundation in the 
word of God. Even if the " preaching to the spirits in prison " 
(1 Pet. iii. 19) is rightly referred to Christ's personal ministry 
in the sphere of the intermediate state, it certainly did not 
apply to those who had rejected him on earth, and it would, in 
that case, probably apply only to true believers under the Old 
Testament Dispensation, as the Catholic Church has always 
taught. 2d. The assumption is built upon the grossly unchris- 
tian principle that God owes to all men a favorable opportunity 
of knowing and of receiving Christ. If this were true the gos- 
pel would be of debt and not of grace. 3d. All the teaching of 
Christ and his apostles implies the contrary. " It is appointed 
unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." — Heb. ix. 27. 
"I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins; 
whither I go ye can not come." — John viii. 21. " And besides 
all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that 
they which would pass from hence to you, can not, neither can 
they pass to us, that would come from thence." — Luke xvi. 26; 
Eev. xxii. 11. 4th. The law of habit, and of confirmed moral 
character would, of course, even if conditions of repentance 
were offered, render the moral state of the sinner far more 
obdurate and hopeless in the intermediate state, than it was 
during the earthly life. The " Hope," is as much unwarranted 
by reason as it is by revelation. 

22. What do Romanists teach with regard to tJie souls of men 
after death? 

1st. That the souls of unbaptized infants go to a place pre- 
pared expressly for them, called the "Embus infantum" where 
they endure no positive suffering, although they do not enjoy 
the vision of God. This is placed in a higher part of the 
Infernus which the fires can not reach, and they suffer only 
a poenam damni (penalty of loss), and have no share in the 
pasnam sensus (penalty of actual suffering), which afflicts adult 
sinners. 

2d. That all unbaptized adults, and all those who subse- 
quently have lost the grace of baptism by mortal sin, and die 
unreconciled to the church, go immediately to hell. 

3d. That those believers who have attained to a state of 
Christian perfection go immediately to heaven. 

4th. That the great mass of partially sanctified Christians 
dying in fellowship with the church, yet still encumbered with 
imperfections, go to purgatory, where they suffer, more or less 
intensely, for a longer or shorter period, until their sins are both 
atoned for and purged out, when they are translated to heaven, 



ROMISH DOCTRINE STATED AND REFUTED. 557 

during which intermediate period they may be efficiently as- 
sisted by the prayers and labors of their friends on earth. 

5th. That Old Testament believers were gathered into a re- 
gion called "limbus patrum" called "Abraham's bosom," where 
they remained without the beatific vision of God, yet without 
suffering, until Christ, during the three days in which his body 
lay in the grave, came and released them. — 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20. 
"Cat. Rom." Part I., Chapter vi., Question 3; "Council of 
Trent," Sess. xxv., de Purgatorio. 

As to purgatory the Council of Trent settled only two points, 
1st, that there is a purgatory ; 2d, that souls therein may be ben- 
efited by the prayers and mass of the church on earth. 

It is generally held, however, that its pains are both nega- 
tive and positive. That the instrument of its sufferings is ma- 
terial fire. That these are dreadful and indefinite in extent. 
That satisfaction may be rendered in this world on much easier 
terms. That while there their souls can neither incur guilt nor 
merit any thing, they can alone render satisfaction for their 
sins by means of passive sufferings. 

They confess that this doctrine is not taught directly in 
Scripture, but maintain, 1st, that it follows necessarily from 
their general doctrine of the satisfaction for sins; 2d, that 
Christ and the apostles taught it incidentally as they did 
infant baptism, etc. They refer to Matt. xii. 32; 1 Cor. iii. 15. 

23. How may the Anti- Christian character of this doctrine he 
shoivn ? 

1st. It confessedly has no direct, and obviously no real 
foundation in Scripture. This consideration alone suffices. 

2d. It proceeds upon an entirely unchristian view of the 
method of satisfying divine justice for sins. (1.) That while 
Christ's merits are infinite, they atone only for original sins. 
(2.) That each believer must make satisfaction in his own per- 
son for sins which he commits after baptism, either in the pains 
of penance or of purgatory. This is contrary to all the Script- 
ures teach, as we have above shown under their respective 
heads, (1) as to the satisfaction rendered to justice by Christ; 
(2) the nature of justification; (3) nature of sin; (4) relation 
of the sufferings and good works of the justified man to the 
law; (5) state of the souls of believers after death, etc., etc. 

3d. It is a heathen doctrine derived from the Egyptians 
through the Greeks and Romans, and currently received through 
the Roman empire. — Virgil's "Eneid," vi. 739, 43. 

4th. Its practical effects have always been, 1st, the abject 
subjection of the people to the priesthood; 2d, the gross de- 
moralization of the people. The church is the self-appointed 



558 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 

depository and dispenser of the superabundant merits of Christ, 
and the supererogatory merits of her eminent saints. On this 
foundation she dispenses the pains of purgatory to those who 
pay for past sins, or sells indulgences to those who pay for the lib- 
erty to sin in the future. Thus the people sin and pay, and the 
priest takes the money and remits the penalty. The figment of 
a purgatory under the control of the priest is the main source 
of his hold upon the fears of the people. — See Ch. XXXII., Q. 19. 

authoritative statements of church doctrine. 

Romish Doctrine. 

11 Cat. of Cone. Trident," Pt. 1, ch. 6, \ 3.— "There is also the fire of 
purgatory, in which the souls of the just are purified by punishment for 
a stated time, to the end that they may be admitted into their eternal 
country, into which nothing that defileth enter eth. And of the truth of this 
doctrine which holy Councils declare to be confirmed by the testimonies 
of Scripture, and by apostolic tradition, the pastor will have occasion to 
treat more diligently and frequently, as we are fallen on times when men 
endure not sound doctrine." 

Bellarmin, " Pur -gator, ," 'ii. 10. — "It is certain that in purgatory, as there 
is also in hell, there is punishment by fire, whether that fire is understood 
literally or metaphorically." His own opinion is that it is corporeal fire. 

Doctrine of the Greek Church. — "The Longer Catechism of the 
Orthodox Catholic, Eastern Church," now the most authoritative stand- 
ard of the Orthodox Graeco-Russian Church. On the 11th Article, Ques. 
372-377. — "From death till the general resurrection the souls of the 
righteous are in light and rest, with a foretaste of eternal happiness ; but 
the souls of the wicked are in a state the reverse of this. "We know this 
because it is ordained that the perfect retribution according to works 
shall be received by the perfect man after the resurrection of the body 
and God's last judgment. — 2 Tim. ii. 8 and 2 Cor. v. 10. But that they 
have a foretaste of bliss is shown on the testimony of Jesus Christ, who 
says in the parable that the righteous Lazarus was immediately after 
death carried into Abraham's bosom. — Luke xvi. 22; Phil. i. 23. But 
we remark of such souls as have departed with faith, but without having 
had time to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, that they may be 
aided towards the attainment of a blessed resurrection by prayers offered 
in their behalf, especially such as are offered in union with the oblation 
of the bloodless sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, and by works 
of mercy done in faith for their memory." 

Protestant Doctrine. 

"Articles of Smalcald" {Lutheran), p. 307. — "Purgatory, and whatever 
of religious rites, worship, or business pertains to it, is a mere disguise 
of the Devil." 

"Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England," Art. 22. — "The Rom- 
ish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration 
as well as of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond 
thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but 
rather repugnant to the wo-d of God." 

"Shorter Catechism of West. Assembly," Ques. 37. — "The souls of be- 
lievers are at their death made perfect in holiness and do immediately 
pass into glory ; and their bodies being still united to Christ, do rest in 
their graves till the resurrection. 



CHAPTER XXXVIII. 

THE RESURRECTION. 

1. What is the meaning of the phrase, "resurrection of the 
dead, 1 ' and "from the dead" as used in Scripture ? 

'Avadradis signifies etymologically " a rising or raising rip." 
It is used in Scripture to designate the future general raising, 
by the power of God, of the bodies of all men from the sleep of 
death. 

2. What Old Testament passages bear upon this subject ? 
Job xix. 25-27; Ps. xlix. 15; Is. xxvi. 19; Dan. xii. 1-3. 

3. What are the principal passages bearing upon this subject in 
the New Testament ? 

Matt. v. 29; x. 28; xxvii. 52, 53; John v. 28, 29; vi. 39; 
Acts ii. 25-34; xiii. 34; Rom. viii. 11, 22, 23; Phil. iii. 20, 21; 
1 These, iv. 13-17, and 15th chap, of 1 Cor. 

4. What is the meaning of the phrases, d&jua ifjvxiKov, natural 
body, and dwjua nvEv/xariHoy, spiritual body, as used by Paul, 1 
Cor. xv. 44? 

The word ipvxij, when contrasted with 7tvevjua, always desig- 
nates the principle of animal life, as distinguished from the 
principle of intelligence and moral agency, which is the itrevjua. 
A dtipta ipvxixdv, translated natural body, evidently means a body 
endowed with animal life, and adapted to the present condition 
of the soul, and to the present physical constitution of the world 
it inhabits. A dwfia itvevjuanxov, translated spiritual body, is a 
body adapted to the use of the soul in its future glorified estate, 
and to the moral and physical conditions of the heavenly world, 
and to this end assimilated by the Holy Ghost, who dwells in 
it, to the glorified body of Christ. — 1 Cor. xv. 45-48. 

5. How does it appear that the same body is to rise that is de- 
posited in the grave ? 

The passages of Scripture which treat of this subject make 



560 THE RESURRECTION. 

it plain that the same bodies are to be raised that are deposited 
in the grave, by the phrases by which they designate the bod- 
ies raised: 1st, "our bodies," Phil. iii. 21; 2d, "this corruptible," 
1 Cor. xv. 53, 54; 3d, "all who are in their graves," John v. 28; 
4th, "they who are asleep," 1 Thess. iv. 13-17; 5th, "our bod- 
ies are the members of Christ," 1 Cor. vi. 15 ; 6th, our resurrec- 
tion is to be because of and like that of Christ, which was of 
his identical body. — John xx. 27. 

6. How does it appear that the final resurrection is to be simul- 
taneous and general ? 

See below, Chap. XXXIX., Questions 9 and 10. 

7. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the nature of the 
resurrection body ? 

1st. It is to be spiritual. — 1 Cor. xv. 44. See above, Ques- 
tion 4. 2d. It is to be like Christ's body.— Phil. iii. 21. 3d. 
Glorious, incorruptible, and powerful. — 1 Cor. xv. 54. 4th. It 
shall never die. — Kev. xxi. 4. ' 5th. Never be given in marriage. 
Matt. xxii. 30. 

8. Hoiv may it be proved that the material body of Christ rose 
from the dead ? 

1st. Christ predicted it. — John ii. 19-21. 2d. His resurrec- 
tion is referred to as a miraculous attestation of the truth of 
his mission, but unless his body rose literally there was noth- 
ing miraculous in his continued life. 3d. The whole language 
of the inspired narratives necessarily implies this, the rolling 
away of the stone, the folding up of the garments, etc. 4th. 
He did not rise until the third day, which proves that it was 
a physical change, and not a mere continuance of spiritual ex- 
istence. — 1 Cor. xv. 4. 5th. His body was seen, handled, and 
examined, for the space of forty days, in order to establish this 
very fact. — Luke xxiv. 39. Dr. Hodge. 

9. How can the materiality of Christ's resurrection body be rec- 
onciled with what is said as to the modes of its manifestation, and 
of its ascension into heaven ? 

The events of his suddenly appearing and vanishing from 
sight, recorded in Luke xxiv. 31 ; John xx. 19 ; Acts i. 9, were 
accomplished through a miraculous interference with the ordi- 
nary laws regulating material bodies, of the same kind pre- 
cisely with many miracles which Jesus wrought in his body 
before his death, e. g., his walking on the sea. — Matt. xiv. 25; 
John vi. 9-14. 



OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 561 

10. How does the resurrection of Christ secure and illustrate 
that of his people ? 

Body and soul together constitute the one person, and man 
in his entire person, and not his soul separately, is embraced 
in both the covenants of works and of grace, and in federal and 
vital union with both the first and the second Adam. Christ's 
resurrection secures ours — 1st. Because his resurrection seals 
and consummates his redemptive power; and the redemption 
of our persons involves the redemption of our bodies. — Rom. 
viii. 23. 2d. Because of our federal and vital union with Christ. 
1 Cor. xv. 21, 22; 1 Thess. iv. 14. 3d. Because of his Spirit 
which dwells in us (Rom. viii. 11), making our bodies his 
members. — 1 Cor. vi. 15. 4th. Because Christ by covenant is 
Lord both of the living and the dead. — Rom. xiv. 9. This 
same federal and vital union of the Christian with Christ (see 
above, Chap. XXXI.) likewise causes the resurrection of the 
believer to be similar to, as well as consequent upon that of 
Christ.— 1 Cor. xv. 49; Phil. iii. 21; 1 John iii. 2. 

11. How far are objections of a scientific character against the 
doctrine of the resurrection of the body entitled to weight? 

All truth is one, and of God, and necessarily consistent, 
whether revealed by means of the phenomena of nature or of 
the words of inspiration. On the other hand, it follows from 
our partial knowledge and often erroneous interpretation of 
the data both of science and revelation, that we often are un- 
able to discern the harmonies of truths in reality intimately 
related. Nothing can be believed to be true which is clearly 
seen to be inconsistent with truth already certainly established. 
But, on the other hand, in the present stage of our develop- 
ment, the largest proportion of the materials of our knowledge 
rests upon independent evidence, and are received by us all 
as certain on their own respective grounds, although we fail 
as yet to reconcile each fact with every other in the harmonies 
of their higher laws. The principles of physical science are to 
be taken as true upon their own ground, i. e., so far as they 
are matured, and the testimony of revelation is to be taken as 
infallible truth on its own ground. The one may modify our 
interpretation of the other, but the most certain of all principles 
is that a matured science will always corroborate rightly in- 
terpreted revelation. 

12. Hoiv may the identity of our future with our present bodies 
be reconciled with 1 Cor. xv. 42-50 ? 

In verses 42-44 this identity is expressly asserted. The 



562 THE RESURRECTION. 

body is to be the same, though changed in these several partic- 
ulars. 1st. It is now subject to corruption, then incorruptible. 
2d. It is now dishonored, it will then be glorified. 3d. It is 
now weak, it will then be powerful. 4th. It is now natural, i. e., 
adapted to the present condition of the soul and constitution of 
the world. It will then be spiritual, i. e., adapted to the glori- 
fied condition of the soul, and constitution of the "new heavens 
and new earth." 

Verse 50 declares simply that "flesh and blood," that is, the 
present corruptible, weak, and depraved constitution of the body 
can not inherit heaven. Yet the passage as a whole clearly 
teaches, not the substitution of a new body, but the transforma- 
tion of the old. 

13. What facts does physiological science establish with respect 
to the perpetual changes that are going on in our present todies, and 
what relation do these facts sustain to this doctrine ? 

By a ceaseless process of the assimilation of new material 
and excretion of the old, the particles composing our bodies are 
ceaselessly changing from birth to death, effecting, as it is com- 
puted, a change in every atom of the entire structure every 
seven years. Thus there will not be a particle in the organism 
of an adult which constituted part of his person when a boy, 
nor in that of the old man of that which belonged to him when 
of middle age. The body from youth to age is universally sub- 
ject to vast changes in size, form, expression, condition, and 
many times to total change of constituent particles. All this 
is certain ; but it is none the less certain that through all these 
changes the man possesses identically the same person from 
youth to age. This proves that neither the identity of the body 
of the same man from youth to age, nor the identity of our 
present with our resurrection bodies, consists in sameness of 
particles. If we are sure of our identity in the one case, we 
need not stumble at the difficulties attending the other. 

14. What objection to this doctrine is derived from the hiotvn 
fact of the dispersion and assimilation into other organisms of the 
particles of our bodies after death ? 

The instant the vital principle surrenders the elements of 
the body to the unmodified control of the laws of chemical 
affinity, their present combinations are dissolved and distributed 
throughout space, and they are taken up and assimilated by 
other animal and vegetable organisms. Thus the same particles 
have formed, at different times, part of the bodies of myriads of 
men, in the successive periods of the growth of individuals, and 
in successive generations. Hence it has been objected to the 



THE CONDITIONS OF IDENTITY. 563 

scriptural doctrine of the resurrection of the body, that it will 
be impossible to decide to which of the thousand bodies which 
these particles have formed part in turn, they should be assigned 
in the resurrection ; or to reinvest each soul with its own body, 
when all the constituent elements of every body have been 
shared in common by many. AYe answer that bodily identity 
does not consist in sameness of constituent particles. See 
above, Question 13. Just as God has revealed to us through 
consciousness that our bodies are identical from infancy to age, 
although their constituent elements often change, he has, with 
equal certainty and reasonableness, revealed to us in his inspired 
word that our bodies, raised in glory, are identical with our 
bodies sown in dishonor, although their constituent particles 
may have been scattered to the ends of the earth. 

15. What is essential to identity? 

1st. "It is evident that identity depends upon different con- 
ditions in different cases. The identity of a stone or any other 
portion of unorganized matter consists in its substance and 
form. On the other hand, the identity of a plant from the seed 
to its maturity is, in a great measure, independent of sameness 
of substance or of form. Their identity appears to consist in 
each plant's being one organized whole, and in the continuity 
of the succession of its elements and parts. The identity of a 
picture does not depend upon the sameness of the particles of 
coloring matter of which it is composed, for these we may con- 
ceive to be continually changing, but upon the drawing, the 
tints, the light and shade, the expression, the idea which it 
embodies," etc. 

2d. Bodily identity is not a conclusion drawn from the com- 
parison, or combination of other facts, but it is itself a single 
irresolvable fact of consciousness. The child, the savage, the 
philosopher, are alike certain of the sameness of their bodies 
at different periods of their lives, and on the same grounds. 
This intuitive conviction, as it is not the result of science, 
so it is no more bound to give an account of itself to sci- 
ence, i. e., we are no more called upon to explain it before we 
believe it than we are to explain any other of the simple data 
of consciousness. 

3d. The resurrection of our bodies, although a certain fact 
of revelation, is to us, as yet, an unrealized experience, an un- 
observed phenomenon. The physical conditions, therefore, of the 
identity of our "spiritual bodies" with our "natural bodies," we 
can not now possibly comprehend, since we have neither the 
experience, the observation, nor the revelation of the facts 



564 THE RESURRECTION. 

involved in such knowledge. This much, however, is certain 
as to the result — 1st. The body of the resurrection will be as 
strictly identical with the body of death, as the body of death 
is with the body of birth. 2d. Each soul will have an indubi- 
table intuitive consciousness that its new body is identical with 
the old. 3d. Each friend shall recognize the individual char- 
acteristics of the soul in the perfectly transparent expression 
of the new body. — Dr. Hodge. 

16. Hoivfar teas the doctrine of the resurrection of the body held 
by the Jews? 

With the exception of some heretical sects, as the Sadducees, 
the Jews held this doctrine in the same sense in which we hold 
it now. This is evident — 1st. Because it was clearly revealed 
in their inspired writings, see above, Question 2. 2d. It is af- 
firmed in their uninspired writings. — Wisdom, iii. 6, 13 ; iv. 15 ; 
2 Maccabees vii. 9, 14, 23, 29. 3d. Christ in his discourses, in- 
stead of proving this doctrine, assumes it as recognized. — Luke 
xiv. 14; John v. 28, 29. 4th. Paul asserts that both the ancient 
Jews (Heb. xi. 35), and his own contemporaries (Acts xxiv. 15), 
believed this doctrine. 



17. What early heretical sects in the Christian church rejected 
this doctrine ? 

All the sects bearing the generic designation of gnostic, and 
under various specific names embodying the leaven of oriental 
philosophy, which infested the church of Christ from the begin- 
ning for many centuries, believed, 1st, that matter is essentially 
vile, and the source of all sin and misery to the soul; 2d, that 
complete sanctification is consummated only in the dissolution 
of the body and the emancipation of the soul ; 3d, that conse- 
quently any literal resurrection of the body is repugnant to the 
spirit, and would be destructive to the purpose of the whole 
gospel. 

18. What is the doctrine taught by Swedenborg on this subject? 

It is substantially the same with that set forth by Professor 
Bush in his once famous book, " Anastasia." They teach that 
the literal body is dissolved, and finally perishes in death. But 
by a subtle law of our nature an etherial, luminous body is 
eliminated out of the ipvxv (the seat of the nervous sensibility, 
occupying the middle link between matter and spirit), so that 
the soul does not go forth from its tabernacle of flesh a bare 



HERETICAL VIEWS. 565 

power of thought, but is clothed upon at once by this psychical 
body. This resurrection of the body, they pretend, takes place 
in every case immediately at death, and accompanies the out- 
going soul. — See "Religion and Philosophy of Swedenborg,'' 
Theophilus Parsons. 

19. How do modern rationalists explain tlie passages of Scripture 
ivhieh relate to this subject? 

They explain them away, denying their plain sense, either, 
1st, as purely allegorical modes of inculcating the truth of the 
continued existence of the soul after death; or, 2d, as conces- 
sions to the prejudices and superstitions of the Jews. 



CHAPTER XXXIX. 

THE SECOND ADVENT AND GENERAL JUDGMENT. 

1. What is the meaning of the expressions u the coming," or u the 
day of the Lord" as used in both the Old and New Testaments ? 

1st. For any special manifestation of God's presence and 
power. — John xiv. 18, 23; Is. xiii. 6; Jer. xlvi. 10. 2d. By way 
of eminence. (1.) In the Old Testament, for the coming of 
Christ in the flesh, and the abrogation of the JeAvish economy. 
Malachi iii. 2; iv. 5. (2.) In the New Testament, for the second 
and final coming of Christ. 

The several terms referring to this last great event are, 1st, 
drtouaXvipiz, revelation. — 1 Cor. i. 7; 2 Thess. i. 7; 1 Pet. i. 7, 13; 
iv. 13. 2d. 7tapov6ia, presence, advent, — Matt. xxiv. 3, 27, 37, 
39; 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 19; iii. 13; iv. 15; v. 23; 2 Thess. 
ii. 1-9; James v. 7, 8; 2 Pet. i. 16; iii. 4, 12; 1 John ii. 28. 3d. 
£7ticpdv£ia y appearance, manifestation, — 2 Thess. ii. 8; 1 Tim. vi. 
14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8; Titus ii 13. 

The time of that coming is designated as "the day of God." 
2 Pet. iii. 12. "The day of the Lord."— 1 Thess. v. 2. "The 
day of the Lord Jesus, and of Jesus Christ," — 1 Cor. i. 8; Phil, 
i. 6, 10; 2 Pet. iii. 10. "That day."— 2 Thess. i. 10; 2 Tim. i. 
12, 18. "The last day."— John vi. 39-54. "The great day," 
"the day of wrath," and " of judgment," and "of revelation." — 
Jude 6; Rev. vi. 17; Rom. ii. 5; 2 Pet. ii. 9. 

Christ is called 6 kpxojuevoz, the coming one, with reference to 
both advents. — Matt. xxi. 9; Luke vii. 19, 20; xix. 38; John 
iii. 31; Rev. i. 4; iv. 8; xi. 17. 

2. Present the evidence that a literal personal advent of Christ 
still future is taught in the Bible. 

1st. The analogy of the first advent. The prophecies re- 
lating to the one having been literally fulfilled by a personal 
coming, we may be certain that the perfectly similar proph- 
ecies relating to the other will be fulfilled in the same sense. 

2d. The language of Christ predicting such advent admits 



FACT CLEARLY REVEALED. 567 

of no other rational interpretation. The coming itself, its man- 
ner and purpose are alike defined. He is to be attended with 
the hosts of heaven, in power and great glory. He is to come 
upon the occasion of the general resurrection and judgment, 
and for the purpose of consummating his mediatorial work, by 
the final condemnation and perdition of all his enemies, and 
by the acknowledgment and completed glorification of all his 
friends. — Matt. xvi. 27; xxiv. 30; xxv. 31; xxvi. 64; Mark viii. 
38; Luke xxl 27. 

3d. The apostles understood these predictions to relate to a 
literal advent of Christ in person. They teach their disciples 
to form the habit of constantly looking forward to it, as a sol- 
emnizing motive to fidelity, and to encouragement and resig- 
nation under present trials. They teach that his coming will 
be visible and glorious, accompanied with the abrogation of 
the present gospel dispensation, the destruction of his enemies, 
the glorification of his friends, the conflagration of the world, 
and the appearance of the "new heaven and new earth." See 
the passages quoted under the preceding chapter, and Acts. i. 
11; iii. 19-21; 1 Cor. iv. 5; xi. 26; xv. 23; Heb. ix. 28; x. 37.— 
Dr. Hodge's " Lecture." 

3. What three modes of interpretation have teen adopted in 
reference to Matt. xxiv. and xxv. ? 

" It is to be remarked that these chapters contain an an- 
swer to three distinct questions. 1st. When the temple and 
city Avere to be destroyed. 2d. What were to be the signs of 
Christ's coming ? 3d. The third question related to the end of 
the world. The difficulty consists in- separating the portions 
relating to these several questions. There are three methods 
adopted in the explanation of these chapters. 1st, The first 
assumes that they refer exclusively to the overthrow of the 
Jewish polity, and the establishment and progress of the gos- 
pel. 2d. The second assumes that what is here said has been 
fulfilled in one sense in the destruction of Jerusalem, and is to 
be fulfilled in a higher sense at the last day. 3d. The third 
supposes that some portions refer exclusively to the former 
event and others exclusively to the latter. It is plain that the 
^rst view is untenable, and whether the second or third view 
e adopted, the obscurity resting upon this passage can not 
properly be allowed to lead us to reject the clear and constant 
teaching of the New Testament with regard to the second per- 
sonal and visible advent of the Son of God." — Dr. Hodge. 

4. In what passages is the time of Christ's second advent declared 
to be unknown ? 



568 SECOND ADVENT. 

Matt. xxiv. 36; Mark xiii. 32; Luke xii. 40; Acts i. 6, 7; 
1 Thess. v. 1-3; 2 Pet. lii. 3, 4, 10; Rev. xvi. 15. 

5. What passages are commonly cited in "proof that the apostles 
expected the second advent during their lives ? 

Phil. i. 6; 1 Thess. iv. 15; Heb. x. 25; 1 Pet. i. 5; James v. 8. 

6. How may it be shown that they did not entertain such an 
expectation ? 

1st. The apostles, as individuals, apart from their public 
capacity as inspired teachers, were subject to the common 
prejudices of their age and nation, and only gradually were 
brought to the full knowledge of the truth. During Christ's 
life they expected that he would establish his kingdom in its 
glory at that time, Luke xxiv. 21; and after his resurrection 
the first question they asked him was, " Wilt thou at this time 
restore the kingdom to Israel ? " 

2d. In their inspired writings they have never taught that 
the second coming of their Lord was to occur in their lifetime, 
or at any fixed time whatever. They only taught (1) that it 
ought to be' habitually desired, and (2) since it is uncertain as 
to time, that it should always be regarded as imminent. 

3d. As further revelations were vouchsafed to them, they 
learned, and explicitly taught, that the time of the second 
advent was not only uncertain, but that many events, still 
future, must previously occur, e. g., the anti-Christian apostasy, 
the preaching of the gospel to every nation, the fulness of the 
Gentiles, the conversion of the Jews, the millennial prosperity 
of the church, and the final defection. — Rom. xi. 15-32; 2 Cor. 
iii. 15, 16; 2 Thess. ii. 3. This is clear, because the coming of 
Christ is declared to be attended with the resurrection of the 
dead, the general judgment, the general conflagration, and the 
restitution of all things. See below, Question 9. 

7. What is the Scriptural doctrine concerning the millennium? 

1st. The Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, 
clearly reveal that the gospel is to exercise an influence over 
all branches of the human family, immeasurably more extensive 
and more thoroughly transforming than any it has ever realized 
in time past. This end is to be gradually attained through 
the spiritual presence of Christ in the ordinary dispensation of 
Providence, and ministrations of his church. — Matt. xiii. 31, 32 ; 
xxviii. 19, 20; Ps. ii. 7, 8; xxii. 27, 29: lxxii. 8-11; Is. ii. 2, 3; 
xi. 6-9; lx. 12; lxvi. 23; Dan. ii. 35, 44; Zech. ix. 10; xiv. 9; 
Rev. xi. 15. 

2d. The period of this general prevalency of the gospel will 



THE PRE MILLENNIAL ADVENT THEORY. 569 

continue a thousand years, and is hence designated the millen- 
nium. — Rev. xx. 2-7. 

3d. The Jews are to be converted to Christianity either at 
the commencement or during the continuance of this period. 
Zech. xii. 10; xiii. 1; Rom. xi. 26-29; 2 Cor. iii. 15, 16. 

4th. At the end of these thousand years, and before the 
coming of Christ, there will be a comparatively short season 
of apostasy and violent conflict between the kingdoms of light 
and darkness. — Luke xvii. 26-30; 2 Pet. iii. 3, 4; Rev. xx. 7-9. 

5th. Christ's advent, the general resurrection and judgment, 
will be simultaneous, and immediately succeeded by the burn- 
ing of the old, and the revelation of the new earth and heavens. 
" Confession of Faith," Chaps, xxxii. and xxxiii. 

8. What is the view of those ivho maintain that Christ's coming 
ivid he " premiRennial" and that he ivill reign personally upon the 
earth a thousand years before the judgment? 

1st. Many of the Jews, mistaking altogether the spiritual 
character of the Messiah's kingdom, entertained the opinion that 
as the church had continued two thousand years before the giv- 
ing of the law, so it would continue two thousand years under 
the law, when the Messiah would commence his personal reign, 
which should, in turn, continue two thousand years to the com- 
mencement of the eternal Sabbath. They expected that the 
Messiah would reign visibly and gloriously in Jerusalem, as his 
capital, over all the nations of the earth, the Jews, as his espe- 
cial people, being exalted to pre-eminent dignity and privilege. 

2d. The Apostolical Fathers of the Jewish Christian branch 
of the church, such as Barnabas, Hermes, and Papias, adopted 
it. It prevailed generally throughout the church from a. d. 150, 
to a. d. 250, being advocated by Irena^us and Tertullian. Since 
that time the doctrine taught in this chapter has been the one 
generally recognized by the whole church, while Millenarianism 
or Chilianism has been confined to individuals and transient 
parties. Its advocates based their doctrine on the literal inter- 
pretation of Rev. xx. 1-10, and held — 1st, That after the de- 
velopment of the anti-Christian apostasy, at some time very 
variously estimated, Christ was suddenly to appear and com- 
mence his personal reign of a thousand years in Jerusalem. 
The dead in Christ (some say only the martyrs) were then to 
rise and reign with him in the world, the majority of whose 
inhabitants shall be converted, and live during this period in 
great prosperity and happiness, the Jews in the mean time 
being converted, and restored to their own land. (2.) That 
after the thousand years there shall come the final apostasy for 
a little season, and then the resurrection of the rest of the dead, 



570 SECOND ADVENT. 

i. e., the wicked and their judgment and condemnation at the 
last day, the final conflagration, and new heavens and earth. 

3d. Modern premillenarians, while differing among them- 
selves as to the details of their interpretations, agree substan- 
tially with the view just stated. Hence they are called pre- 
millenarians, because they believe the advent of Christ will 
occur before the Millennium. 

9. What are the principal Scriptural arguments against this 
vieiv ? 

1st. The theory is evidently Jewish in its origin and Juda- 
izing in its tendency. 

2d. It is not consistent with what the Scriptures teach. 
(1.) As to the nature of Christ's kingdom, e. g., (a) that it is 
not of this world but spiritual, Matt. xiii. 11--44; John xviii. 
36; Rom. xiv. 17; (b) that it was not to be confined to the 
Jews, Matt. viii. 11, 12; (c) that regeneration is the condition 
of admission to it, John iii. 3, 5 ; (d) that the blessings of the 
kingdom are purely spiritual, as pardon, sanctification, etc., 
Matt. iii. 2, 11; Col. i. 13, 14. (2.) As to the fact that the 
kingdom of Christ has already come. He has sat upon the 
throne of his Father David ever since his ascension. — Acts ii. 
29-36; iii. 13-15; iv. 26-28; v. 29-31; Heb. x. 12, 13; Rev. 
iii. 7-12. The Old Testament prophecies, therefore, which pre- 
dict this kingdom, must refer to the present dispensation of 
grace, and not to a future reign of Christ on earth in person 
among men in the flesh. 

3d. The second advent is not to occur until the resurrec- 
tion, when all the dead, both good and bad, are to rise at once. 
Dan. xii. 2; John v. 28, 29; 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. iv. 16; Rev. 
xx. 11, 15. Only one passage (Rev. xx. 1-10) is even appar- 
ently inconsistent with the fact here asserted. For the true 
interpretation of that passage, see next question. 

4th. The second advent is not to occur until the simulta- 
neous judgment of all men, the good and the bad together. 
Matt. vii. 21, 23; xiii. 30-43; xvi. 24, 27; xxv. 31-46; Rom. ii. 
5, 16; 1 Cor. iii. 12-15; 2 Cor. v. 9-11; 2 Thess. i. 6-10; Rev. 
xx. 11-15. 

5th. The second advent is to be attended with the general 
conflagration and the generation of the " new heavens and the 
new earth." — 2 Pet. iii. 7-13; Rev. xx. 11; xxi. 1. "Brown 
on the Second Advent." 

10. What considerations favor the spiritual and oppose the lit- 
eral interpretation of Rev. xx. 1-10. 

The spiritual interpretation of this difficult passage is as 



THE SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION OF REV. XX. i-io. 571 

follows: Christ has in reserve for his church a period of uni- 
versal expansion and of pre-eminent spiritual prosperity, when 
the spirit and character of the "noble army of martyrs" shall 
be reproduced again in the great body of God's people in an 
unprecedented measure, and when these martyrs shall, in the 
general triumph of their cause, and in the overthrow of that 
of their enemies, receive judgment over their foes and reign in 
the earth; while the party of Satan, "the rest of the dead," 
shall not nourish again until the thousand years be ended, 
when it shall prevail again for a little season. 

The considerations in favor of this interpretation of the 
passage are — 

1st. It occurs in one of the most highly figurative books of 
the Bible. 

2d. This interpretation is perfectly consistent with all the 
other more explicit teachings of the Scriptures on the several 
points involved. 

3d. The same figure, viz., that of life again from the dead, is 
frequently used in Scripture to express the idea of the spiritual 
revival of the church. — Is. xxvi. 19 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 12-14 ; Hosea 
vi. 1-3; Eom. xi. 15; Eev. xi. 11. 

The considerations bearing against the literal interpretation 
of this passage are — 

1st. That the pretended doctrine of two resurrections, i. e., 
first of the righteous, and then, after an interval of a thousand 
years, of the wicked, is taught nowhere else in the Bible, and 
this single passage in which it occurs is an obscure one. This 
is a strong presumption against the truth of the doctrine. 

2d. It is inconsistent with what the Scriptures uniformly 
teach as to the nature of the resurrection body, i. e., that it is 
to be "spiritual," not "natural," or "flesh and blood." — 1 Cor. 
xv. 44. It is, on the contrary, an essential part of the doc- 
trine associated with the literal interpretation of this passage, 
that the saints, or at least the martyrs, are to rise and reign 
a thousand years in the flesh, and in this world as at present 
constituted. 

3d. The literal interpretation of this passage contradicts the 
clear and uniform teaching of the Scriptures, that all the dead, 
good and bad, are to rise and be judged together at the second 
coming of Christ, and the entire revolution of the present order 
of creation. See the Scripture testimonies collected under the 
preceding question. 

11. Show that the future general conversion of the Jeics is taught 
in Scripture? 

This Paul, in Eom. xi. 15-29, both asserts and proves from 



572 SECOND ADVENT. 

Old Testament prophecies, e. g., Isa. lix. 20; Jer. xxxi. 31. See 
also Zech. xii. 10; 2 Cor. iii. 15, 16. 

12. State the argument for and against the opinion that the Jews 
are to be restored to their oivn land? 

The arguments in favor of that return are — 

1st. The literal sense of many old Testament prophecies. 
Isa. xi. 11, 12; Jer. iii. 17; xvi. 14, 15; Ezek. xx. 40-44; xxxiv. 
11-31; xxxvi. 1-3(1; Hosea iii. 4, 5; Amos ix. 11-15; Zech. x. 
6-10; xiv. 1-20; Joel iii. 1-17. 

2d. That the whole territory promised by God to Abraham 
has never at any period been fully possessed by his descend- 
ants, Gen. xv. 18-21 ; Num. xxxiv. 6-12, and renewed through 
Ezekiel, Ezek. xlvii. 1-23. 

3d. The land, though capable of maintaining a vast popula- 
tion, is as preserved unoccupied, evidently waiting for inhabi- 
tants. — See Keith's "Land of Israel." 

4th. The Jews, though scattered among all nations, have 
been miraculously preserved a separate people, and evidently 
await a destiny as signal and peculiar as has been their his- 
tory. The arguments against their return to the land of their 
fathers are — 

1st. The New Testament is entirely silent on the subject of 
any such return, which would be an inexplicable omission in 
the clearer revelation, if that event is really future. 

2d. The literal interpretation of the Old Testament proph- 
ecies concerned in this question would be most unnatural — 
(1.) Because, if the interpretation is to be consistent, it must 
be literal in all its parts. Then it would follow that David 
himself, in person, must be raised to reign again in Jerusalem. 
Ezek. xxxvii. 24, etc. Then the Levitical priesthood must be 
restored, and bloody sacrifices offered to God. — Ezek. xl. to 
xlvi. ; Jer. xvii. 25, 26. Then must Jerusalem be the centre of 
government, the Jews a superior class in the Christian church, 
and all worshippers must come monthly and from Sabbath to 
Sabbath, from the ends of the earth to worship at the Holy 
City.— Isa. ii. 2, 3; lxvi. 20-23; Zech. xiv. 16-21. (2.) Because 
the literal interpretation thus leads to the revival of the entire 
ritual system of the Jews, and is inconsistent with the spiritual- 
ity of the kingdom of Christ. — See above, Question 9. (3.) Be- 
cause the literal interpretation of these passages is inconsistent 
with what the New Testament plainly teaches as to the aboli- 
tion of all distinctions between the Jew and Gentile; the Jews, 
when converted, are to be grafted back into the same church. 
Bom. xi. 19-24; Eph. ii. 13-19. (4.) Because this interpretation 
is inconsistent with what the New Testament teaches as to the 



THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 573 

temporary purpose, the virtual insufficiency, and the final aboli- 
tion of the Levitical priesthood and their sacrifices, and of the 
infinite sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, and the eternity of 
his priesthood. — Gal. iv. 9, 10; v. 4-8; Col. ii. 16-23; Heb. vii. 
12-18; viii, 7-13; ix. 1-14. 

3d. On the other hand, the spiritual interpretation of these 
Old Testament prophecies — which regards them as predicting 
the future purity and extension of the Christian church, and as 
indicating these spiritual subjects by means of those persons, 
places, and ordinances of the old economy which were typical 
of them — is both natural and accordant to the analogy of Script- 
ure. In the New Testament, Christians are called Abraham's 
seed, Gal. iii. 29; Israelites, Gal. vi. 16; Eph. ii. 12, 19; comers 
to Mount Zion, Heb. xii. 22; citizens of the heavenly Jerusa- 
lem, Gal. iv. 26; the circumcision, Phil. iii. 3; Col. ii. 11, and 
in Rev. ii. 9, they are called Jews. There is also a Christian 
priesthood and spiritual sacrifice. — 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9; Heb. xiii. 
15, 16; Rom. xii. 1. See Fairbairn's "Typology Appendix," 

13. Who is to he the judge of the world ? 

Jesus Christ, in his official character as Mediator, in both 
natures, as the God-man. This is evident, 1st, because as judge 
he is called the " Son of Man," Matt. xxv. 31, 32, and the "man 
ordained by God." — Acts xvii. 31. 2d. Because all judgment 
is said to be committed to him by the Father. — John v. 22, 27. 
3d. Because it pertains to him as Mediator to complete and 
publicly manifest the salvation of his people, and the overthrow 
of his enemies, together with the glorious righteousness of his 
work in both respects, 2 Thess. i. 7-10; Rev. i. 7; and thus 
accomplish the "restitution of all things." — Acts iii. 21. And 
this he shall do in his own person, that his glory may be the 
more manifest, the discomfiture of his enemies the more humil- 
iating, and the hope and joy of his redeemed the more complete. 

14. Who are to he the subjects of the judgment ? 

1st. The whole race of Adam, without exception, of every 
generation, condition, and character, each individual appearing 
in the integrity of his person, "body, soul, and spirit." The 
dead will be raised, and the living changed simultaneouslv. 
Matt. xxv. 31-46; 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; 2 Cor. v. 10; 1 Theses. 
iv. 17; 2 Thess. i. 6-10; Rev. xx. 11-15. 2d. All evil angels. 
2 Pet. ii. 4; Jude 6. Good angels appearing as attendants and 
ministers. — Matt. xiii. 41, 42. 



574 SECOND ADVENT. 

15. In ivhat sense is it said that the saints shall judge the ivorld ? 

See Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 29, 30; 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3; Rev. 
xx. 4. 

In virtue of the union of believers with Christ, his triumph 
and dominion is theirs. They are joint heirs with him, and if 
they suffer with him they shall reign with him. — Rom. viii. 17; 
2 Tim. ii. 12. He will judge and condemn his enemies as head 
and champion of his church, all his members assenting to 
his judgment and glorying in his triumph. — Rev. xix. 1-5. 
Hodge's "Com. on 1st Cor." 

16. Upon what principles will his judgment be dispensed ? 

The judge is figuratively represented (Rev. xx. 12), after 
the analogy of human tribunals, as opening "books" in judg- 
ment, according to the things written in which the dead are to 
be judged, and also "another book," "which is the book of 
life." The books first mentioned doubtless figuratively repre- 
sent the law or standard according to which each one was to 
be judged, and the facts in his case, or " the works which he 
had done." The "book of life" (see also Phil. iv. 3; Rev. iii. 5; 
xiii. 8 ; xx. 15) is the book of God's eternal electing love. Those 
whose names are found written in the "book of life" will be 
declared righteous on the ground of their participation in the 
righteousness of Christ. Their holy characters and good deeds, 
however, will be publicly declared as the evidences of their elec- 
tion, of their relation to Christ, and of the glorious work of 
Christ in them.— Matt. xiii. 43; xxv. 34-40. 

Those whose names are not found written in "the book of 
life " will be condemned on the ground of the evil " deeds they 
have done in the body," tried by the standard of God's law, not 
as that law has been ignorantly conceived of by each, but as 
it has been more or less fully and clearly revealed by the Judge 
himself to each severally. The heathen who has sinned with- 
out the written law "shall be judged without the law," i. e., by 
the law written upon his heart, which made him a law unto 
himself. — Luke xii. 47, 48; Rom. ii. 12-15. The Jew, who 
" sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law." — Rom. ii. 12. 
Every individual dwelling under the light of the Christian rev- 
elation shall be judged in strict accordance with the whole 
will of God as made known to him, all of the special advan- 
tages of every kind enjoyed by him individually modifying the 
proportion of his responsibility. — Matt. xi. 20-24; John iii. 19. 

The secrets of all hearts, the inward states and hidden 
springs of action, will be brought in as the subject matter of 
judgment, as well as the actions themselves, Eccle. xii. 14 ; 1 



THE FUTURE CONFLAGRATION OF THE EARTH. 575 

Cor. iv. 5; and publicly declared to vindicate the justice of the 
Judge, and to make manifest the shame of the sinner. — Luke 
viii. 17 ; xii. 2, 3 ; Mark iv. 22. Whether the sins of the saints 
will be brought forward at the judgment or not is a question 
not settled by the Scriptures, though debated by theologians. 
If they should be, we are sure that it will be done only with 
the design and effect of enhancing the glory of the Saviour 
and the comfort of the saved. 

17. What do the Scriptures reveal concerning the future con- 
flagration of our earth ? 

The principal passages bearing upon this point are Ps. cii. 
26, 27; Is. li. 6; Rom. viii. 19-23; Heb. xii. 26, 27; 2 Pet. iii. 
10-13; Rev. xx. and xxi. 

Many of the older theologians thought that these passages 
indicated that the whole existing physical universe was to be 
destroyed. This view is now universally discarded. Some held 
that this earth is to be annihilated. 

The most common and probable opinion is that at " the res- 
titution of all things," Acts. iii. 21, this earth, with its atmos- 
phere, is to be subjected to intense heat, which will radically 
change its present physical condition, introducing in the place 
of the present an higher order of things, which shall appear 
as a " new heavens and a new earth," wherein " the creature 
itself, also, shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption 
into the glorious liberty of the children of God," Rom. viii. 19-23, 
and wherein the constitution of the new world will be adapted 
to the " spiritual " or resurrection bodies of the saints, 1 Cor. 
xv. 44, to be the scene of the heavenly society, and, above all, 
to be the palace-temple of the God-man forever. — Eph. i. 14; 
Rev. v. 9, 10; xxi. 1-5. See also Fairbairn's "Typology," Vol. 
I., Part II., Chap, ii., sec. 7. 

18. What should be the moral effect of the Scripture doctrine 
of Christ's second advent ? 

Christians ought thereby to be comforted when in sorrow, 
and always stimulated to duty. — Phil. iii. 20; Col. iii. 4, 5 ; James 
v. 7; 1 John iii. 2, 3. It is their duty also to love, watch, ivait 
for, and hasten unto the coming of their Lord. — Luke xii. 35, 37 ; 
1 Cor. i. 7, 8; Phil. iii. 20; 1 Thess. i. 9, 10; 2 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Pet. 
iii. 12; Rev. xxii. 20. 

Unbelievers should be filled with fearful apprehension, and 
with all their might they should seek place for immediate 
repentance.— Mark xiii. 35, 37; 2 Pet. iii. 9, 10; Jude 14, 15. 
Brown's " Second Advent." 



576 SECOND ADVENT. 

Authoritative Statements oe Church Doctrine. 

Augustine (" De Civitate Dei," 20, 7) states, that he once held the 
doctrine of a millenarian sabbath, but then rejected it and advocates the 
doctrine of this chapter, which has thenceforward prevailed in the Roman 
Church. 

"Augsburg Confession" Pt. 1, Art. 17. — " They also teach that Christ 
will appear at the end of the world for judgment, and that he will resusci- 
tate all the dead, and that he will give to the pious elect eternal life and 
perpetual joy, but condemn wicked men and devils, that they shall be 
tormented without end. They condemn the Anabaptists, who believe 
that there will be an end of the future punishment of lost men and devils. 
And they condemn others who scatter Jewish opinions, to the effect that 
before the resurrection of the dead the pious will occupy the kingdom 
of the world, and the wicked be everywhere in subjection." 

" The English Confession of Edward VI." — "Those who endeavor, to 
recall the fable of the Millenarians, oppose the sacred Scriptures, and 
precipitate themselves into Jewish insanities." 

" Belgic Confession" Art. 37. — "Lastly, we believe, from the word of 
God, that our Lord Jesus Christ will return from heaven bodily and vis- 
ibly, and with the highest glory, when the time predetermined by God, 
but unknown to all creatures, shall arrive, and the number of the elect be 
complete. . . . At that time all who have heretofore died on the earth 
shall arise." 

" Westminster Conf. Chaps. 32 and 33; "Larger Cat," Ques. 87-89.— 
These teach — 1. At the last day shall be a general resurrection of the 
dead both of the just and of the unjust. 2. All found alive shall be im- 
mediately changed. 3. Immediately after the resurrection shall follow 
the general and final judgment of all angels and men, good and bad. 
4. That the date of this day and hour is purposely kept secret by God. 
In Ques. 53-56, we are further taught, that Christ's second coming will 
not occur until " the last day," " the end of the world," and that he will 
then come "to judge the world in righteousness." 



CHAPTER XL. 

HEAVEN AND HELL. 

1. What is the New Testament usage as to the terms 6vpav6^ y 
" heaven" and ra £7tovpdvia, " heavenly places ? " 

'Ovpavos is used chiefly in three senses. 1st. The upper air 
where the birds fly. — Matt. viii. 20; xxiv. 30. 2d. The region 
in which the stars revolve. — Acts vii. 42 ; Heb. xi. 12. 3d. The 
abode of Christ's human nature, the scene of the special mani- 
festation of divine glory, and of the eternal blessedness of the 
saints. — Heb. ix. 24; 1 Pet. hi. 22. This is sometimes called 
the "third heaven." — 2 Cor. xii. 2. The phrases "new heaven," 
and "new earth," in contrast with "first heavens," and "first 
earth," 2 Pet. iii. 7, 13; Rev. xxi. 1, refer to some unexplained 
change which will take place in the final catastrophe, by which 
God will revolutionize our portion of the physical universe, 
cleansing it from the stain of sin, and qualifying it to be the 
abode of blessedness. 

For the usage with regard to the phrase "kingdom of 
heaven," see above, Chap. XXVI I., Question 5. 

The phrase rd iitovpdvioc is translated sometimes, " heavenly 
things," John iii. 12, where it signifies the mysteries of the un- 
seen spiritual world; and sometimes "heavenly places," Eph. 
i. 3, and ii. 6, where it means the state into which a believer 
is introduced at his regeneration ; see also Eph. i. 20, where it 
means the "third heavens"; and Eph. vi. 12, where it signifies 
indefinitely the supermundane universe. 

2. What are the principal terms, both literal and figurative, 
ivhicJi are used, in Scripture to designate the future blessedness of 
the saints ? 

Literal terms: "life, eternal life, and life everlasting. — Matt. 
vii. 14; xix. 16, 29; xxv. 46. Glory, the glory of God, an eter- 
nal weight of glory. — Rom. ii. 7, 10; v. 2; 2 Cor. iv. 17. Peace. 
Rom. ii. 10. Salvation, and eternal salvation. — Heb. v. 9." 
37 



578 HEAVEN AND HELL. 

Figurative terms: "Paradise. — Luke xxiii. 43; 2 Cor. xii. 
4; Eev. ii. 7. Heavenly Jerusalem. — Gal. iv. 26; Rev. iii. 12. 
Kingdom of heaven, heavenly kingdom, eternal kingdom, king- 
dom prepared from the foundation of the world. — Matt. xxv. 34 ; 
2 Tim. iv. 18; 2 Pet. i. 11. Eternal inheritance. — 1 Pet. i. 4; 
Heb. ix. 15. The blessed are said to sit down with Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob, to be in Abraham's bosom, Luke xvi. 22; 
Matt. viii. 11; to reign with Christ, 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12; to enjoy 
a Sabbath or rest, Heb. iv. 10, 11." — Kitto's "Bib. Ency." 

3. What is revealed ivith respect to heaven as a jAace ? 

All the Scripture representations of heaven involve the idea 
of a definite place, as well as of a state of blessedness. Of that 
place, however, nothing more is revealed than that it is defined 
by the local presence of Christ's finite soul and body, and that 
it is the scene of the pre-eminent manifestation of God's glory. 
John xvii. 24 ; 2 Cor. v. 9 ; Rev. v. 6. 

From such passages as Rom. viii. 19-23; 2 Pet. iii. 5-13; 
Rev. xxi. 1, it appears not improbable that after the general 
destruction of the present form of the world by fire, which 
shall accompany the judgment, this world will be reconsti- 
tuted, and gloriously adapted to be the permanent residence 
of Christ and his church. As there is to be a " spiritual body," 
there may be in the same sense a spiritual world, that is, a world 
adapted to be the theatre of the glorified spirits of the saints 
made perfect. As nature was cursed for man's sake, and the 
creature, through him, made subject to vanity, it may be that 
they shall share in his redemption and exaltation. — See Fair- 
bairn's " Typology," Part II., Chap, ii., sec. 7. . 

4. Wherein does the blessedness of heaven consist as far as 
revealed ? 

1st. Negatively, in perfect deliverance from sin, and from 
all its evil consequences, physical, moral, and social. — Rev. vii. 
16, 17; xxi. 4, 27. 

2d. Positively. (1.) In the perfection of our nature, both 
material and spiritual; the full development and harmonious 
exercise of all our faculties, intellectual and moral, and in the 
unrestrained progress thereof to eternity. — 1 Cor. xiii. 9-12; 
xv. 45-49; 1 John iii. 2. (2.) In the sight of our blessed Re- 
deemer, communion with his person, and fellowship in all his 
glory and blessedness, and through him with saints and angels. 
John xvii. 24; 1 John i. 3; Rev. iii. 21; xxi. 3, 4, 5. (3.) In 
that "beatific vision of God," which, consisting in the ever 
increasingly clear discovery, of the divine excellence lovingly 



THE BLESSEDNESS OF HEAVEN. 579 

apprehended, transforms the soul into the same image, from 
glory unto glory. — Matt. v. 8 ; 2 Cor. iii. 18. 

In meditating upon what is revealed of the conditions of 
heavenly existence two errors are to be avoided: 1st, the ex- 
treme of regarding the mode of existence experienced by the 
saints in heaven as too nearly analogous to that of our earthly 
life; 2d, the opposite extreme of regarding the conditions of 
the heavenly life as too widely distinguished from that of our 
present experience. The evil effect of the first extreme will, 
of course, be to degrade by unworthy associations our concep- 
tions of heaven; while the evil effect of the opposite extreme 
will be in great measure to destroy the moral power which a 
hope of heaven .should naturally exert over our hearts and 
lives, by rendering our conceptions of it vague, and our sym- 
pathy with its characteristics consequently distant and feeble. 
To avoid both of these extremes, we should fix the limits within 
which our conceptions of the future existence of the saints must 
range, by distinguishing between those elements of man's na- 
ture, and of his relations to God and other men, which are 
essential and unchangeable, and those elements which must 
be changed in order to render his nature in his relations per- 
fect. 1st. The following must be changed: (1) all sin and its 
consequences must be removed; (2) "spiritual bodies" must 
take the place of our present flesh and blood; (3) the new 
heavens and the new earth must take the place of the present 
heavens and earth, as the scene of man's life ; (4) the laws of 
social organization must be radically changed, since in heaven 
there will be no marriage, but a social order analogous to that 
of the "angels of God" introduced. 

2d. The following elements are essential, and therefore 
unchangeable. (1.) Man will continue ever to exist, as com- 
pounded of two natures, spiritual and material. (2.) He is 
essentially intellectual, and must live by knowledge. (3.) He 
is essentially active, and must have work to do. (4.) Man can, 
as a finite creature, know God only mediately, ?'. e., through 
his works of creation and providence, the experience of his 
gracious work upon our hearts, and through his incarnate Son, 
who is the image of his person, and the fulness of the Godhead 
bodily. God will therefore in heaven continue to teach man 
through his works, and to act upon him by means of motives 
addressed to his will through his understanding. (5.) The 
memory of man never finally loses the slightest impression, 
and it will belong to the perfection of the heavenly state that 
every experience acquired in the past will always be within 
the perfect control of the will. (6.) Man is essentially a social 
being. This, taken in connection with the preceding point, 



580 HEAVEN AND HELL. 

indicates the conclusion that the associations, as well as the 
experience of our earthly life, will carry all of their natural 
consequences with them into the new mode of existence, 
except as far as they are necessarily modified (not lost) by 
the change. (7.) Man's life is essentially an eternal progress 
towards infinite perfection. (8.) All the known analogies of 
God's works in creation, in his providence in the material and 
moral world, and in his dispensation of grace (1 Cor. xii. 5-28), 
indicate that in heaven saints will differ among themselves 
both as to inherent capacities and qualities, and as to relative 
rank and office. These differences will doubtless be deter- 
mined (a) by constitutional differences of natural capacity, 

(b) by gracious rewards in heaven corresponding in kind and 
degree to the gracious fruitfulness of the individual on earth, 

(c) by the absolute sovereignty of the Creator. — Matt. xvi. 27 ; 
Kom. ii. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 4-28. 

5. What are the principal terms, literal and figurative, which 
are applied in Scripture to the future condition of tJw reprobate ? 

As a place, it is sometimes literally designated by aidrjs, 
Hades, and sometimes by yeewa, both translated hell. — Matt, 
v. 22, 29, 30; Luke xvi. 23. Also by the phrase, "place of tor- 
ment." — Luke xvi. 28. As a condition of suffering, it is literally 
designated by the phrases, "wrath of God," Kom. ii. 5, and 
" second death," Rev. xxi. 8. 

Figurative terms. — Everlasting fire, prepared for the devil 
and his angels. — Matt. xxv. 41. The hell of fire, where the 
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. — Mark ix. 44. 
The lake which burnetii with fire and brimstone. — Rev. xxi. 8. 
Bottomless pit. — Rev. ix. 2. The dreadful nature of this abode 
of the wicked is implied in such expressions as "outer dark- 
ness," the place "where there is weeping and gnashing of 
teeth," Matt. viii. 12; "I am tormented in this flame," Luke 
xvi. 24; "unquenchable fire," Luke hi. 17; "furnace of fire," 
Matt. xiii. 42; "blackness of darkness," Jude 13; "torment in 
fire and brimstone," Rev. xiv. 10; "the smoke of their torment 
ascendeth forever and ever, and they have no rest day nor 
night," Rev. xiv. 11.— Kitto's "Bib. Ency." 

6. What do the Scriptures teach as to the nature of future 
'punishments ? 

The terms used in Scripture to describe these sufferings are 
evidently figurative, yet they certainly establish the following 
points. These sufferings will consist — 1st. In the loss of all 
good, whether natural, as granted through Adam, or gracious, 
as offered through Christ. 2d. In all the natural consequences 



THE PENALTY OF SIN ENDLESS SUFFERING. 581 

of unrestrained sin, judicial abandonment, utter alienation from 
God, and the awful society of lost men and devils. — 2 Thess. i. 9. 
3d. In the positive infliction of torment, God's wrath and curse 
descending upon both the moral and physical nature of its 
objects. The Scriptures also establish the fact that these suf- 
ferings must be — 1st. Inconceivably dreadful in degree. 2d. 
Endless in duration. 3d. Various in degree, proportionately to 
the deserts of the subject. — Matt. x. 15 ; Luke xii. 48. 

7. What is the usage of the words, dioov, eternity, and dicnvios, 
eternal, in the New Testament, and the argument thence derived 
establishing the endless duration of future punishment ? 

1st. The Greek language possesses no more emphatic terms 
with which to express the idea of endless duration than these. 
2d. Although they are sometimes employed in the New Testa- 
ment to designate limited duration, yet, in the vast majority 
of instances, they evidently designate unlimited duration. 3d. 
They are used to express the endless duration of God. (1.) dioov 
is thus used, 1 Tim. i. 17, and as applied to Christ, Rev. i. 18. 
(2.) diGovios is thus used, Rom. xvi. 26, and as applied to the 
Holy Ghost. — Heb. ix. 14. 4th. They are used to express the 
endless duration of the future happiness of the saints. (1.) dioov 
is thus used. — John vi. 57, 58; 2 Cor. ix. 9. (2.) dioovios is thus 
used. — Matt. xix. 29; Mark x. 30; John iii. 15; Rom. ii. 7. 5th. 
In Matt. xxv. 46, the very same word is used in a single clause 
to define at once the duration of the future happiness of the 
saints, and the misery of the lost. Thus the Scriptures do ex- 
pressly declare that the duration of the future misery of the 
lost is to be in precisely the same sense unending, as is either 
the life of God, or the blessedness of the saints. See the learned, 
independent, and conclusive critical examination of the New 
Testament usage of these words by the late Prof. Moses Stuart, 
"Stuart's Essays on Future Punishment," published Presby. 
Board of Publication. 

8. What evidence for the truth on this subject is furnished by 
tlue New Testament usage of the word didios? 

This word, formed from dei, always, forever, signifies, in 
classical Greek, eternal. It occurs only twice in the New Tes- 
tament, Rom. i. 20, " even his eternal power and Godhead," and 
Jude 6, " Angels reserved in everlasting chains." But lost men 
share the fate of lost angels. — Matt, xxv. 41 ; Rev. xx. 10. Thus 
the same word expresses the duration of the Godhead and of 
the sufferings of the lost. 



582 HEAVEN AND HELL. 

9. What other evidence do the Scriptures furnish on this subject ? 

1st. There is nothing in the Scriptures which, even by the 
most remote implication, suggests that the sufferings of the 
lost shall ever end. 

2d. The constant application to the subject of such figura- 
tive language as,- "fire that shall not be quenched," "fire un- 
quenchable," "the worm that never dies," "bottomless pit," the 
necessity of paying the "uttermost farthing," "the smoke of 
their torment arising forever and ever," Luke iii. 17; Mark ix. 
45, 46; Rev. xiv. 10, 11, is consistent only with the conviction 
that God wills us to believe on his authority that future punish- 
ments are literally endless. It is said of those who commit 
the unpardonable sin that they shall never be forgiven, "neither 
in this world nor in that which is to come." — Matt. xii. 32. 

It is argued that this language is figurative, and the dictum 
is quoted "Theologia symbolica non est demonstrative:" This is 
true. But of what are these the figures ? What does God in- 
tend to signify by such symbols? They may unquestionably 
be pulled to pieces severally, and their meaning brought into 
doubt in detail. But it must be remembered — (1.) That this 
language is characteristic of all God's revelations to us of the 
future of those who die impenitent. Such descriptions color 
uniformly the whole presentation. (2. ) The Bible was intended 
for popular instruction. Hence the obvious meaning must have 
been the one intended to be conveyed, and hence the one to 
which the divine veracity is pledged. This is especially a 
weighty consideration in the case of this doctrine, because — 
(a.) It is a practical one of personal concernment, (b.) The 
language occurs frequently, and strikes the eye of every reader, 
(c.) The entire historical church (with only individual excep- 
tions) have, as a matter of fact, interpreted it in the sense of 
endless suffering. And this in spite of the constant and tremen- 
dous pressure of human desires toward the opposite conclusion. 

10. What presumption on this subject is afforded by reason and 
experience ? 

The Scriptures teach us — (1.) That man is dead in sin and 
morally impotent. (2.) That repentance and faith are wrought 
in the soul by the Holy Ghost. Experience teaches us that 
repentance and faith are as duties exceedingly difficult under 
the most favorable conditions. Reason and experience unite 
in teaching us that they become more difficult and unusual the 
longer a person lives and the more definitely his moral char- 
acter and habits are fixed. 

1st. The most favorable possible conditions are afforded in 



THEORIES OF ANNIHILATION AND RESTORATION. 583 

this life. Youth, immature character, the word and the Spirit, 
and the providence of God and the Christian Church. Su- 
pernatural demonstrations and purgatorial sufferings would, 
have no equal moral effect. "If they hear not Moses and the 
prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from 
the dead." — Luke xvi. 31. 

2d. The law of habit and fixed moral character leads to the 
conclusion, that the hope of a favorable change must rapidly 
decrease in proportion as it is delayed. 

11. What two vieivs on this subject have been held by different 
parties in opposition to the faith of the whole Christian Church, and 
the clear teaching of Gods word ? 

I. That of the total extinction of the being of the finally 
reprobate, as the sentence of the " second death," after the last 
Judgment. This doctrine is styled popularly "The Annihila- 
tion of the Wicked," and by its advocates "Conditional Immor- 
tality." It has been advocated ably in "Debt and Grace as 
related to the Doctrine of a Future Life," by C. F. Hudson, and in 
"The Duration and Nature of Future Punishment," by Henry 
Constable, and "View of Scripture Kevelation concerning a 
Future State," by Archb. Whately, and in " Life in Christ," by 
Edward White. 

They argue that the word "death" means always "cessation 
of being," and "eternal destruction" means always the "putting 
out of existence." 

We answer — (1.) They fail utterly in their attempt to show 
that the words and phrases cited ever have, and much more 
that they always have, the sense contended for. (2.) Their 
doctrine is in plain contradiction of the uniform representation 
of Scripture as to the ultimate state of the finally impenitent as 
illustrated above, Ques. 9. (3.) Their doctrine is in contradic- 
tion of the natural and universal instinct of immortality wit- 
nessed to by the religions and literatures of all nations, whether 
heathen, Jewish, or Christian. 

II. The opinion of those who agree in general in teaching 
the future restoration of sinners after an indefinite period of 
purifying discipline subsequent to death, whether in the inter- 
mediate state or after the judgment (see above, Ch. XXXVII. , 
Ques. 21). This view rests, (1) upon a class of texts presumed 
to teach the restitution of all things as Acts hi. 21; Eph. i. 10; 
Col. i. 19, 20, etc. (2.) Upon what they claim to be a moral 
intuition that endless punishment would be unworthy of God. 

We answer — 1st. The passages of Scripture upon which the 
argument is based would be consistent with this view of ulti- 
mate universal salvation, if there were no explicit statements 



584 HEAVEN AND HELL. 

of Scripture to the contrary. Each class of Scripture must be 
interpreted in view of the other. And it is self-evident that 
the general and indefinite must be ruled by the definite and ex- 
plicit. It is an axiom that the phrase "all" and u all things" in- 
clude more or less according to the subject. We gladly admit — 
(1) that all m Christ shall be made alive, and (2) that he will 
be made head of all things absolutely without exception, in the 
sense that the entire universe, including friends and foes, shall 
be subjected to his royal supremacy, all revolt subdued, and 
each class put into its own sphere. — See below, Ques. 14. 

2d. The "intuitions" upon which the doctrine is founded are 
shown below, Ques. 12 and 13, not to be trustworthy. 

3d. See above, Ques. 10, as the hope of moral reformation 
in another life is not accordant with the representations of 
Scripture, so it is not confirmed by the lessons of reason and 
experience. 

12. What objections are urged against this doctrine derived from 
the justice of God? 

The justice of God requires — (1.) That none should suffer 
for that for which they are not responsible. (2.) That punish- 
ment should in every case be exactly proportioned to the guilt 
of the subject. 

But it is objected — 1st. Multitudes in Christian as well as 
in heathen lands are not responsible for their impenitency, be- 
cause they have never in their whole lives had an opportunity 
of knowing or of receiving Christ. 

We answer — that the direct statements of the Bible, the 
whole analogy of the Christian system, and the experience 
of all Christians, unite in affirming that all human nature is 
guilty and deserving of the wrath and curse of God anterior to 
the gift or the rejection of Christ. If it were not so Christ need 
not have been given to expiate guilt. If it were not so Christ 
would be " dead in vain," and salvation would be of debt and 
not of GRACE. 

It is objected — 2d. No sin of a finite creature can deserve 
an infinite punishment, but all endless punishment is infinite. 

We answer — that the word infinite in this connection is 
misleading. It is plain that endless sin deserves endless punish- 
ment, and that is all the Scriptures or the Church teach. One 
sin deserves the wrath and curse of God. He is under no obli- 
gation in justice to provide a redemption. The instant a soul 
sins it is cut off from the communion and life of God. As long 
as it continues in that state it will continue to sin. As long as 
it continues to sin, it will continue to deserve his wrath and 
curse. It is obvious that the sinful tempers and conduct in- 



OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 585 

dulged in hell will deserve and receive punishment as strictly 
as those previously indulged in this life. Otherwise the mon- 
strous principle would be true that the worse a sinner becomes 
the less is he worthy of blame or punishment. 

It is objected — 3d. The infinite does not admit of degrees, 
yet the guilt of different sinners is various. 

We answer — this is a dishonest cavil. It is plain that suf- 
ferings alike endless may vary indefinitely in degree. 

It is objected — 4th. That the moral difference between the 
lowest saint saved and the most amiable sinner lost may be 
imperceptible, yet the difference of destiny is infinite. 

We answer— that this is all true, but the ground of the 
treatment of the most unworthy believer is the righteousness 
of Christ, and the ground of the treatment of the least unworthy 
unbeliever is his own character and conduct. 

13. What objection drawn from the benevolence of God is urged 
against this doctrine ? 

It is claimed — 1st. That the benevolence of God prompts 
him to do all in his power to promote their happiness. And 
as we have no right to limit that power, we are warranted to 
hope that he will ultimately secure the happiness of all. 

We answer — (1.) God's benevolence prompts him to secure 
the happiness of all his creatures as far as that is consistent 
with his other attributes of wisdom, holiness, and justice. 
(2.) We have constant experience that he does inflict upon 
his creatures evils which have no tendency and no influence 
in promoting the ultimate happiness of the individuals con- 
cerned. (3) The benevolence of the supreme Moral Governor, 
as concerned for the peace and purity of the universe, concurs 
with his justice in demanding the execution of the full penalty 
of the law upon all law-breakers, especially upon all who have 
aggravated their guilt by the rejection of his crucified Son. 

It is claimed — 2d. That the cultivated intuitions of Christian 
men assure them that it is inconsistent with the moral perfec- 
tions of God first to bring into existence immortal beings under 
conditions common to the majority of men, and then to doom 
them to an after-life of endless misery. 

We ANswer — (1.) The permission of sin in general is a mys- 
tery. The ante-natal forfeiture of human beings in Adam is a 
mystery. But every enlightened human being knows himself 
to be without excuse, and worthy of God's wrath. (2.) God 
has shown his sense of the terrible guilt of men by the penalty 
he executed upon his own Son, when he suffered in our place. 
(3.) It is absurd for us to claim that our intuitions are adequate 
to determine what it will be right for the Moral Governor of all 



586 HEAVEN AND HELL. 

the universe to do with finally impenitent sinners. Doubtless 
righteousness in him is precisely what righteousness is in a per- 
fectly righteous man. But we do not know all the conditions 
of the case, and our "intuitions" are darkened by sin (Heb. iii. 
13). Hence our only source of reliable knowledge is the word of 
God, and that, as we have seen, gives us no ground to hope 
for repentance beyond the grave. (2.) It is absolutely cruel 
to follow the example of the devil with Eve in persuading the 
people that after all God may be more benevolent than the 
language of his word implies (Gen. iii. 3, 4). 

14. What argument for the future restoration of all rational 
creatures to holiness and happiness is founded upon Kom. v. 18, 19 ; 
1 Cor. xv. 22-28; Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 19, 20? 

In regard to Kom. v. 18, it is argued that the phrase "all 
men " must have precisely the same extent of application in 
the one clause as in the other. We answer, 1st, the phrase 
" all men " is often used in Scripture in connections which nec- 
essarily restrict the sense. — John iii. 26; xii. 32. 2d. In this 
case the phrase "all men" is evidently defined by the qualify- 
ing phrase, ver. 17, "who have received abundance of grace 
and the gift of righteousness." 3d. This contrast between the 
" all men " in Adam and the " all men " in Christ is consistent 
with the analogy of the whole gospel. 

In regard to 1 Cor. xv. 22, the argument is the same as that 
drawn from Eom. v. 18. From verses 25-28 it is argued that 
the great end of Christ's mediatorial reign must be the restora- 
tion of every creature to holiness and blessedness. To this we 
answer, 1st, this is a strained interpretation put upon these 
words, which they do not necessarily bear, and which is clearly 
refuted by the many direct testimonies we have cited from 
Scripture above. 2d. It is inconsistent with the scope of Paul's 
subject in this passage. He says that from eternity to the 
ascension God reigned absolutely. From the ascension to the 
restitution of all things God reigns in the person of the God- 
man as Mediator. From the restitution to eternity God will 
again reign directly as absolute God. 

The ultimate salvation of all creatures is argued also from 
Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 19, 20. In both passages, however, the "all 
things" signify the whole company of angels and redeemed 
men, who are gathered under the dominion of Christ. Because, 
1st, in both passages the subject of discourse is the church, not 
the universe ; 2d, in both passages the " all things " is limited 
by the qualifying phrases, "the predestinated," "we who first 
trusted in Christ," "the accepted in the beloved," "if ye con- 






VIEW OF SOME ARMINIANS. 587 

tinue in the faith," etc., etc. See Hodge's " Commentaries on 
Eomans, 1st Corinthians, and Ephesians." 

15. What opinions have prevailed among extreme Arminians 
on this subject ? 



From their fundamental principles as to the relation of 
ability to responsibility, they must hold that none can perish 
who have not in some form and degree or another had an op- 
portunity of availing themselves of salvation through Christ. 

In order to avoid the obvious inferences from the broad 
facts of the case, some have supposed that God may extend the 
probation of some beyond this life.— -Scot's " Christian Life." 

Limborch (Lib. iv., c. xi.) says, that probably all who make 
a good use of their light in this world will be saved, but if we 
reject this, rather than believe that the divine goodness could 
condemn to hell fire these (the ignorant) it appears better to 
hold that as there is a threefold estate of mankind in this life, — 
of believers, of unbelievers, and of the ignorant, — so there is also 
a threefold estate after this life : of eternal life for believers, of 
infernal sufferings for unbelievers, and besides these the status 
ignorantium. 



CHAPTER XLI. 

SACRAMENTS. 

1. What is the etymology and what the classical and patristic 
usage of the word " sacr -amentum?" 

1st. It is derived from sacro, are, to make sacred, dedicate to 
gods or sacred uses. 

2d. In its classical usage it signified — (1.) That by which 
a person binds himself to another to perform any thing. (2.) 
Thence a sum deposited with the court as pledge, and which, 
if forfeited, was devoted to sacred uses. (3.) Also an oath, 
especially a soldier's oath of faithful consecration to his coun- 
try's service. — Ainsworth's "Die." 

3d. The Fathers used this word in a conventional sense as 
equivalent to the Greek ^v6vr/piov y a mystery, i. e., something 
unknown until revealed, and hence an emblem, a type, a rite 
having some latent spiritual meaning known only to the in- 
itiated, or instructed. 

The Greek fathers applied the term /uvtirr/pior to the Chris- 
tian ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper, inasmuch as 
these rites had a spiritual significance, and were thus a form 
of revelation of divine truth. 

The Latin fathers used the word "sacramentum " as a Latin 
word, in its own proper sense, for any thing sacred in itself, 
or having the power of binding, or consecrating men, and in 
addition they used it as the equivalent of the Greek word 
juvdrtfpiov, i. e., in the entirely different sense of a revealed 
truth, or a sign or symbol revealing a truth otherwise hidden. 
This fact has given to the usage of this word " sacramentum," 
in the scholastic theology, an injurious latitude and indefinite- 
ness of meaning. Thus in Eph. iii. 3, 4, 9; v. 32; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 
Eev. i. 20, the word ^v6rrfpxov truly bears the sense of "the 
revelation of a truth un discoverable by reason," and it is trans- 
lated in such passages in the English version, mystery, and in 



THEIR DEFINITION. 589 

the Latin vulgate, "sacramentum" Thus the Eomish church 
uses the same word in two entirely different senses, applying 
it indifferently to baptism and the Lord's Supper " as binding 
ordinances," and to the union of believers with Christ as a re- 
vealed truth. — Eph. v. 32. And hence they absurdly infer that 
matrimony is a sacrament. 

2. What is the definition of a sacrament, as given by the Fathers, 
the Schoolmen, the Romish Church, the Church of England, and in 
our own Standards ? 

1st. Augustine's definition is "Signum rei sacrse," or "Sac- 
ramentum est invisibilis gratise visibile signum, ad nostram 
justificationem institutum;" "accedit verbum ad elementum, 
et fit sacramentum." 

2d. Victor of St. Hugo: "Sacramentum est visibilis forma 
invisibilis gratise in eo collate." 

3d. The Council of Trent: "A sacrament is something pre- 
sented to the senses, which has the power, by divine institu- 
tion, not only of signifying, but also of efficiently conveying 
grace."— "Cat. Kom.," Part IL, Chap, i., Q. 6. 

4th. The Church of England, in the 25th article of religion, 
affirms that " Sacraments instituted by Christ are not only the 
badges and tokens of the profession of Christian men, but 
rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of 
grace, and of God's good will towards us, by the which he 
doth work inwardly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also 
strengthen and confirm our faith in him." 

5th. The "Westminster Assembly's Larger Cat," Q. 162 
and 163, affirms that a " Sacrament is a holy ordinance insti- 
tuted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit to 
those who are within the covenant of grace the benefits of his 
mediation, to increase their faith and all other graces, to oblige 
them to obedience, to testify and cherish their love and com- 
munion with one another, and to distinguish them from those 
that are without." "The parts of a sacrament are two, the 
one an outward and sensible sign used according to Christ's 
own appointment; the other an inward spiritual grace thereby 
signified." 

3. On what principles is such a definition to be constructed? 

1st. It is to be remembered that the term "sacrament" does 
not occur in the Bible. 

2d. From the extreme latitude with which this term has 
been used, both in the sense proper to it as a Latin word, and 
in that attributed to it as the conventional equivalent of the 



590 SACRAMENTS. 

Greek word fiv6rr]piov, it is evident that no definition of a gos- 
pel ordinance can be arrived at by a mere reference either to the 
etymology or ecclesiastical usage of the word "sacramentum." 

3d. The definition of a class of gospel ordinances can be 
properly formed only by a comparison of all the Scriptures 
teach concerning the origin, nature, and design of those ordi- 
nances universally recognized as belonging to that class, and 
thus by determining those essential elements which are com- 
mon to each member of the class, and which distinguish them 
as a class from all other divine ordinances. 

4th. Those ordinances which are " universally recognized " 
as sacraments are baptism and the Lord's Supper. "Thomas 
Aquinas agreed with other theologians, 'Summa,' P. III., Qu. 
62, Art. 5, in regarding baptism and the Lord's Supper as 
' potissima sacramental " — Hagenbach. The true question then 
is, Are there any other divine ordinances having the essential char- 
acteristics which are common to baptism and the Lord's Supper ? 

4. Hoiv many sacraments do Romanists make, and how may 
the controversy between them and the Protestants be decided ? 

The Roman church teaches that there are seven sacraments, 
viz., baptism, confirmation, the Lord's Supper, penance, extreme 
unction, orders, marriage. 

We maintain, however, that only baptism and the Lord's 
Supper can be properly embraced under either the Protestant 
or the Catholic definitions of a sacrament, as given above, Ques- 
tion 2. 

1st. Confirmation, penance, and extreme unction are not 
divine institutions, having no warrant whatever in Scripture. 

2d. That marriage instituted by God in Paradise, and ordi- 
nation to the gospel ministry instituted by Christ, although 
both divine institutions, are evidently not ordinances of the 
same kind with baptism and the Lord's Supper, and do not 
meet the conditions of either definitions of a sacrament, since 
they neither signify nor convey any inward grace. 

5. What tivo things are included in every sacrament ? 

1st. "An outward visible sign used according to Christ's 
own appointment; 2d, an inward spiritual grace therebv sig- 
nified."— " L. Cat.," Q. 163. See below, "Apol. Aug. Conf." 
(Hase), p. 267. _ 

The Romanists, in the language of the Schoolmen, distin- 
guish between the matter and the form of a sacrament. The 
matter is that part of the sacrament subjected to the senses, and 
significant of grace, e. g., the water, and the act of applying the 



RELATION OF SIGN TO GRACE SIGNIFIED. 591 

water in baptism, and the bread and wine, and the acts of 
breaking the bread, and pouring out the wine in the Lord's 
Supper. The form is the divine word used by the minister in 
administering the elements, devoting them thus to the office of 
signifying grace. 

6. What, according to the Romanists, is the relation between the 
sign and the grace signified ? 

They hold that in consequence of the divine institution, and 
in virtue of the "power of the Omnipotent which exists in 
them," the grace signified is contained in the very nature of 
the sacraments themselves, so that it is always conferred, ex 
opere operato (i. e., ex vi ipsius actionis sacramentalis), upon 
every receiver of them who does not oppose a positive obstacle 
thereto. Thus they understand the "sacramental union," or 
relation between the sign and the grace signified to be physical, 
or that which subsists between a substance and its properties, 
i. e., the virtue of conferring grace is, in the sacraments, as the 
virtue of burning is in fire. — " Council of Trent," Sess. 7, Cans. 
6 and 8. " Cat. Rom.," Part II., Chap, i., Q. 18. Bellarmin, "De 
Sacram.," 2, 1. 

7. What is the Ziuinglian doctrine on this subject ? 

Zwingle, the reformer of Switzerland, held a position at the 
opposite extreme to that of the Romish church, viz., that the 
sign simply represents by appropriate symbols, and symbolical 
actions, the grace to which it is related. Thus the sacraments 
are only effective means of the objective presentation of the 
truth symbolized. 

8. In what sense is the word " exhibit " used in our standards 
in reference to this subject ? 

Compare " Con. of Faith," Chap, xxvii., Sec. 3, and Chap, 
xxviii., Sec. 6, and " L. Cat," Q. 162. 

This word is derived from the Latin word " exhibeo," which 
bore the twofold sense of conveying and of disclosing. It is evi- 
dent that the term "exhibit" has retained in our standards the 
former sense of conveying, conferring. As in medical language, 
" to exhibit a remedy " is to administer it. 

9. What is the common doctrine of the Reformed churches as to 
the relation of the sign to the grace signified ? 

The Reformed confessions agree in teaching that this rela- 
tion is, 1st, simply moral, i. e., it is established only by the 



592 SACRAMENTS. 

institution and promise of Christ, and it depends upon the right 
administration of the ordinance, and upon the faith and knowl- 
edge of the recipient. And, 2d, that it is real, that is, when 
rightly administered, and when received by the recipient with 
knowledge and faith they do really, because of the promise of 
Christ, seal the grace signified, and convey it to the recipient, 
i. e., the recipient does receive the grace with the sign. 

This doctrine, therefore, includes, 1st, the Zwinglian view, 
that the outward visible sign truly signifies the grace. And, 
2d, that they are, as ordinances of God's appointment, seals 
attached to the promise to authenticate it, as the natural phe- 
nomenon of the rainbow was made a seal of God's promise to 
Noah in virtue of the divine appointment. 3d. That as seals 
thus accompanying a divine promise by divine authority, they 
do actually convey the grace they signify to those for whom 
that grace is intended, and who are in a proper spiritual state 
to receive it, "as a key conveys admission, a deed an estate, 
the ceremony of marriage the rights of marriage." See Tur- 
retin, L. xix., Question 4; " Conf. of Faith," Chap, xxvii. ; "L 
Cat," Questions 162, 163; "Cat. Gene.," sec. 5th, "de Sacra- 
mentis;" "Conf. Faith of the French Church," article 34; "Old 
Scotch Conf.," section 21. 



10. What is the design of the sacraments 



1st. That they should signify, seal, and exhibit to those 
within the covenant of grace the benefits of Christ's redemp- 
tion, and thus as a principal means of grace edify the church. 
Matt. iii. 11; Gen. xvii. 11, 13; 1 Cor. x. 2-21; xi. 23-26; xii. 
13; Rom. ii. 28, 29; iv. 11; vi. 3, 4; Gal. iii. 27; 1 Pet. iii. 21. 

2d. That they should be visible badges of membership in 
the church, to put a visible difference between the professed 
followers of Christ and the world, Gen xxxiv. 14; Ex. xii. 48; 
Eph. ii. 19; "Conf. Faith," Chap, xxvii., section 1. 



The Romish Doctrine as to the Efficacy of the Sacraments. 

11. What is the Romish doctrine as to the efficacy of the Sac- 
raments ? 

1st. As shown above, under Question 6, they hold that the 
sacraments contain the grace which they signify. That this 
grace-conferring energy is inseparable from a genuine sacra- 
ment, and that as an objective fact, they contain it at all times, 
and present it alike to all subjects irrespective of character. 

2d. In every case of their application, except when posi- 



ROMISH DOCTRINE AS TO THEIR EFFICACY. 593 

tively opposed and nullified, they effect the grace they signify, 
as an opus operatum, i. e., by the mere inherent power of the 
sacramental action itself. 

12. Upon ivhat conditions on the part of the administrator do 
they believe that the efficacy of the sacrament depends? 

The genuineness of a sacrament on the part of the adminis- 
trator, depends, according to the Romanists — 

1st. On his being canonically authorized. In case of the 
sacraments of orders and confirmation he must be a bishop in 
communion with the pope. In the case of the other sacraments 
he must be a regular popish priest. The personal character of 
the bishop or priest, even though he be in mortal sin, does not 
prevent the effect. — " Con. Trident," Sess. can. 12. 

2d. The administrator must, in the act, exercise the posi- 
tive intention of effecting what the church intends to be effected 
by each sacrament. 

Dens (Vol. V., p. 127) says, "To the valid performance of 
the sacrament is required the intention upon the part of the 
officiating minister of doing that which the church does. The 
necessary intention in the minister consists in an act of his will, 
by which he wills the external action with the intention of doing 
what the church does;" that is, of performing a valid sacrament. 
Otherwise, although every external action may be regularly per- 
formed, the whole is void. See "Con. Trent," Sess. 7, canon 11. 
This leaves the recipient entirely at the mercy of the minister, 
since the validity of the whole service depends upon his secret 
intention, and is evidently one of the devices of that anti-Chris- 
tian church to make the people dependent upon the priesthood. 

13. What is the sense in which Protestants admit "intention" 
to be necessary ? 

They admit that in order to render the outward service a 
valid sacrament, it must be performed with the ostensible pro- 
fessed design of complying thereby with the command of Christ, 
and of doing what he requires to be done by those who accept 
the gospel covenant. 

14 What condition do the Romanists hold to be essential to the 
efficacy of a sacrament, on the part of the subject ? 

1st. In the case of infant baptism no condition upon the part 
of the subject is necessary. 

2d. On the part of adults, the only condition is that they 
shall not positively oppose them by absolute infidelity or resist- 
ance of will {iion ponentibus obicem). Faith and repentance, as 
38 



594 SACRAMENTS. 

these are possible to the unregenerate soul, are also required as 
necessary to the effect of baptism (" Cat. Kohl," Pt. II., Chap, ii., 
Ques. 39). Bellarmin, "De Sacramentis," 2, 1, says that the will 
to be baptized, faith, and penitence, are necessary dispositions 
enabling the sacrament to produce its effect, just as dryness on 
the part of wood is the condition of the fire burning it when 
applied, but never the cause of the burning. 

15. Wliat according to the Papal Church are the effects produced 
by the sacraments ? 

1st. Justifying (sanctifying) grace. 

2d. Three of the sacraments, baptism, confirmation, and or- 
ders, also impress upon the subject "a character." This "sac- 
ramental character " (from the Greek word x a P (XKT Vftj ct mark, 
or device, engraved or impressed by a seed) is a distinctive and 
indelible impression stamped on the soul, " the twofold effect 
of which is, that it qualifies us to receive or perform something 
sacred, and distinguishes one from another." It is upon this 
account that baptism and confirmation are never repeated, 
and that the authority and privileges of the priesthood can 
never be alienated. — "Cat. Bom.," Part IL, Chap, i., Q. 21-25; 
" Council Trent," Sess. 7, can. 9. 



16. How may this doctrine be disproved ? 



That the sacraments have not the power of conveying grace 
to all, whether they are included within the covenant of grace 
or not, or whether they possess faith or not, is certain, because — 

1st. They are seals of the gospel covenant (see below, Ques- 
tion 14). But a seal merely ratifies a covenant as a covenant. 
It can convey the grace promised only on the supposition that 
the conditions of the covenant are fulfilled. But salvation and 
every spiritual blessing is by that covenant declared to depend 
upon the condition of faith. 

2d. Knowledge and faith are required as the prerequisite 
conditions necessary to be found in all applicants, as the essen- 
tial qualification for receiving the sacraments. — Acts ii. 41; 
viii. 37; x. 47; Rom. iv. 11. 

3d. Faith is essential to render the sacraments efficacious. 
Eom. ii. 25-29; 1 Cor. xi. 27-29; 1 Pet. iii. 21. 

4th. Many who receive the sacraments are notoriously with- 
out the grace they signify. Witness the case of Simon Magus, 
Acts viii. 9-21, and of many of the Corinthians and Galatians, 
and of the majority of nominal Christians in the present day. 

5th. Many have had the grace without the sacraments. 
Witness Abraham, the thief upon the cross, and Cornelius the 



LUTHERAN VIEW AS TO THEIR EFFICACY. 595 

centurion, and a multitude of eminent Christians among the 
Society of Friends. 

6th. This doctrine blasphemously ties down the grace of the 
ever living and sovereign God, and puts its entire disposal into 
the hands of fallible and often wicked men. 

7th. This doctrine is an essential element of that ritualistic 
and priestly system which prevailed among the Pharisees, and 
against which the whole New Testament is a protest, 

8th. The uniform effect of this system has been to exalt the 
power of the priests, and to confound all knowledge as to the 
nature of true religion. As the baptized, as a matter of fact, 
do not always nor generally bear the fruits of the Spirit, all rit- 
ualists agree in regarding these fruits as not essential to salva- 
tion. Where this system prevails vital godliness expires. 

Doctrine of Protestant Churches as to the Efficacy of the 

Sacraments. 

17. What is the Lutheran doctrine as to the efficacy of the 
sacraments ? 

1st. They reject the popish doctrine that the sacraments 
effect grace ex opere operato. 

2d. They maintain that their grace-conferring efficacy resides 
in the sacraments intrinsically. 

3d. That as an objective fact it is communicated to every 
recipient, whether he have faith or not. 

4th. But it takes effect only in those who have true faith to 
receive it. As the healing virtue resided in Christ whether the 
woman touched or not (Matt. ix. 20), yet it would not have 
availed her unless she had believed and touched. 

5th. They hold that this efficacy resides not in the sign or 
ceremony, but in the Word which accompanies the sign and 
constitutes it a sacrament. The efficacy is not due to the mere 
moral power of the truth, nor to the faith of the recipient, but 
it is supernatural, residing in the power of the Holy Ghost. 
But not the power of the Holy Ghost as extrinsic to the truth, 
but as dwelling in it, and inseparable from it — the virtus Spir- 
itus Sancti intrinsicus accedens. See Krauth's "Conservative 
Reformation," pp. 825-830. 

18. What is the Zicinglian and Bernonstrant view as to the 
same ? 

The tendency of thought on this subject first developed by 
Zwingle was afterward carried out more fully by the Remon- 
strants of the next century, and to a greater extent by the 



596 SACRAMENTS. 

Socinians. Low views as to the nature and efficacy of the 
sacraments have also largely prevailed in this century among 
all evangelical churches, in reaction from the extreme views of 
the Eomanists and Kitualists. For a general statement of this 
mode of thought see above, Ques. 7. 

19. State the doctrine of the Reformed churches on this subject 

As to their doctrine of the relation of the sign to the grace 
signified, see above, Ques. 9. 

Hence as to the efficacy of the sacraments the Eeformed — 
1st. Deny that they confer grace as an opus operatum. 2d. 
They affirm that they convey no grace to the unworthy recip- 
ient. 3d. That their efficacy is not of the mere moral power 
of the truth they symbolize. 4th. That they do really confer 
grace upon the worthy recipient. 5th. But they do this instru- 
m en tally, because the supernatural efficiency is not due to them, 
nor to him that administers them, but to the Holy Spirit who 
as a free personal agent uses them sovereignly as his instru- 
ments, to do his will {virtus Spiritus Sancti extrinsicus accedens). 
6th. That as seals of the covenant of grace they convey and 
confirm grace to those to whom it belongs, i. e., that is to those 
who are within that covenant, and in the case of adults, only 
through a living faith. 7th. That the grace conferred by the 
sacraments often is conferred upon true believers before and 
without their use. 

20. By what evidence is the truth of the Reformed Doctrine 
established ? 

The truth of the Eeformed doctrine is established on the 
one hand by the evidence disproving the truth of the Eomish 
doctrine, set forth under Ques. 16. Its truth as opposed to the 
meagre Zwinglian view, on the other hand, is established as 
follows: (1.) That the sacraments are not only signs of the 
grace of Christ, but also seals of the gospel covenant offering 
us that grace upon the condition of faith, " is evident from the 
fact that Paul says that circumcision is the seal of the right- 
eousness of faith. — Eom. iv. 11. And that the apostle regarded 
baptism in the same light is evident from Col. ii. 11. In refer- 
ence to the Lord's Supper, the Saviour said, 'this cup is the 
new covenant in my blood,' i. e., the new covenant was ratified 
by his blood. Of that blood the cup is the appointed memorial, 
and it is, therefore, both the memorial and the confirmation of 
the covenant itself. .... The gospel is represented under 
the form of a covenant. The sacraments are the seals of that 
covenant. God, in their appointment, binds himself to the ful- 
filment of his promises; his people, by receiving them, bind 



ROMISH VIEW AS TO THEIR NECESSITY. 597 

themselves to trust and serve him. This idea is included in 
the representation given (Rom. vi. 3, 4) in the formula of 
baptism, and in all those passages in which a participation 
of Christian ordinances is said to include a profession of the 
gospel." (2.) As seals attached to the covenant, it follows that 
they actually convey the grace signified, as a legal form of 
investiture, to those to whom, according to the terms of the 
covenant, it belongs. Thus a deed, when signed and sealed, is 
said to convey the property it represents, because it is the legal 
form by which the intention of the original possessor is publicly 
expressed, and his act ratified. It is on this ground that in 
Scripture, as in common language, the names and attributes of 
the graces sealed are ascribed to the sacraments by which they 
are sealed and conveyed to their rightful possessors. — "Conf. 
Faith," Chap, xxvii., section 2. They are said to wash away 
sin, to unite to Christ, to save, etc. — Acts ii. 38; xxii. 16; Rom. 
vi. 2, 6; 1 Cor. x. 16; xii. 13; Gal. iii. 27; Titus iii. 5. "Way 
of Life." 



The Necessity of the Sacraments. 

21. What doctrine do the Romanists maintain as to the necessity 
of the Sacraments ? 

The Romanists distinguish, 1st, between a condition abso- 
lutely necessary to attain an end, and one which is only highly 
convenient and helpful in order to it. And, 2d, between the 
necessity which attaches to essential means, and that obli- 
gation which arises from the positive command of God. Ac- 
cordingly, they hold that the several sacraments are necessary 
in different respects. 

Baptism they hold to be absolutely necessary, either its actual 
reception, or the honest purpose to receive it, alike for infants 
and adults, as the sole means of attaining salvation. 

Penance they hold to be absolutely necessary in the same 
sense, but only for those who have committed mortal sin subse- 
quently to their baptism. 

Orders they hold to be absolutely necessary in the same 
sense, yet not for every individual, as a means of personal sal- 
vation, but in respect to the whole church as a community. 

Confirmation, the Eucharist, and Extreme Unction are neces- 
sary only in the sense of having been commanded, and of being 
eminently helpful. 

Marriage they hold to be necessary only in this second sense, 
and only for those who enter into the conjugal relation. — "Cat. 
Rom.," Part II., Chap, i., Q. 13. 



598 SACRAMENTS. 

Puseyites, and high churchmen generally, hold the dogma 
of baptismal regeneration, and of course the consequence that 
baptism is absolutely necessary as the sole means of salvation. 

22. What is the Protestant doctrine as to Hie necessity of the 
sacraments ? 

1st. That the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper 
were instituted by Christ, and that their perpetual observance 
is obligatory upon the . church upon the ground of the divine 
precept. This is evident (1) from the record of their institution, 
Matt, xxviii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xi. 25, 26 ; (2) from the example of the 
apostles.— Acts ii. 41; viii. 37; 1 Cor. xi. 23-28; x. 16-21. 

2d. That nevertheless the grace offered in the gospel cove- 
nant does not reside in these sacraments physically, nor is it 
tied to them inseparably, so that, although obligatory as duties, 
and helpful as means to those who are prepared to receive them, 
they are in no sense the essential means, without which salva- 
tion can not be attained. This is proved by the arguments 
presented above, under Q. 16. 

The Validity of the Sacraments. 

This includes whatever is essential to the genuineness of a 
sacrament, in order that it may avail to the end of its institution. 

23. What are the various opinions on this subject? 

All church parties agree that there must be — 1st. The right 
"matter," the proper elements, and actions. 2d. The right 
"form," the prescribed words which attend its administration, 
and added to the "form" constitute the sacrament. 3d. The 
right "intention," the serious design of doing what Christ com- 
manded in the institution of the rite. 

Different churches differ as to what are the proper "matter," 
"form," and "intention." It appears certain that no one not 
sincerely believing in the supreme deity of Christ and in his 
office as Kedeemer, and in the personality of the Holy Ghost, 
can possibly have the right "intention." Hence the General 
Assembly, 1814 ("Moore's Digest," p. 660), decided, "It is the 
deliberate and unanimous opinion of the Assembly, that those 
who renounce the fundamental doctrines of the Trinity, and 
deny that Jesus Christ is the same in substance, equal in power 
and glory with the Father, can not be recognized as ministers 
of the gospel, and that their ministrations (baptism, etc.) are 
wholly invalid." All churches agree that "the efficacy of a 
sacrament does not depend upon the piety of him that doth 



THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR VALIDITY. 599 

administer it." — "Conf. Faith," Ch. xxvii., § 3, "Can. Cone. 
Trident," Sess. 7, can. 11. And the " Gallic Conf.," Art. 28, 
states the common opinion and practice of all the Protestant 
churches with respect to Eomish baptism. " Because, never- 
theless, that in the papacy some scant vestiges of the true 
church remain, and especially the substance of baptism, the 
efficacy of which does not depend on him that administers it, 
we acknowledge those baptized by them, not to need to be re- 
baptized, although on account of the corruptions adhering, no 
one can offer his infants to be baptized by them, without suf- 
fering pollution himself." 

In respect to the qualifications of the person administrating 
the Papists maintain that it is essential to the validity of a 
sacrament that it should be administered by a canonically or- 
dained minister. For orders and confirmation a bishop, for the 
rest a priest. But on account of the absolute necessity (as they 
hold) of baptism for salvation, they admit "all, even from among 
the laity, whether men or women, whatever sect they profess 
(to baptize). For this is permitted, if necessity compels, even 
to Jews, infidels or heretics, provided, however, they intend to 
perform what the Catholic Church performs in that act of her 
ministry." — " Cat. of Cone. Trident," and " Cone. Trident," Sess. 
7, " On Bapt.," can. 4. 

Protestants regard the sacraments both as a preaching of the 
Word, and as authoritative seals, and badges of church mem- 
bership. Their administration consequently must be confined 
to those church officers who possess by divine commission the 
office of teaching and ruling, " neither of which (sacraments) 
may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word, law- 
fully ordained." — "Conf. Faith," Ch. xxvii., § 4. Not regarding 
baptism as essential to salvation, Protestants generally make 
no exception in favor of lay-baptism. — "Directory for Worship," 
Ch. vii., § 1, Calvin's "Instit.," Bk. IV., Ch. xv., § 20. 

The Authoeitative Statements of vaeiotjs Churches. 

Bomish Doctrine. — "Gat. Cone. Trident," Pt. 2, ch. i., Ques. 8. — "A 
sacrament is a thing lying open to the senses, which from the institution 
of God, has the power both of signifying and of effecting holiness and 
righteousness." 

"Cone. Trident" Sess. 7, can. 1. — "If any one saith that the sacra- 
ments of the New Law, were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, 
or that they are more or less than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, 
the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or 
even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; 
let him be anathema." 

Can. 4. — "If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Law are 
not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, 



600 SACRAMENTS. 

or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, 
the grace of justification (though all the sacraments are not necessary 
for every individual) ; let him be anathema. " 

Can. 6. — "If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Law do 
not contain the grace which they signify; or that they do not confer that 
grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they 
were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, 
and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are dis- 
tinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema." 

Can. 8. — "If any one saith that by the sacraments of the New Law 
grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine 
promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema." 

Can. 9. — "If any one says that in the three sacraments, of Baptism, 
Confirmation, and Orders, there is not imprinted in the soul a character, 
that is a certain spiritual and indelible sign, on account of which they 
can not be repeated; let him be anathema." 

Can. 11. — "If any one saith that in ministers, when they effect and 
confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention, at least, of 
doing what the Church does; let him be anathema." 

"Cat. Cone. Trident," Pt. 2, ch. i., Ques. 24, 25.— "The other effect 
of Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders is the character which they im- 
press on the soul. This character is, as it were, a certain distinctive 
mark impressed on the soul, which inhering, as it does perpetually, can 
never be blotted out ... it has a twofold effect: it both renders us 
fit to undertake and perform something sacred; and it serves to distin- 
guish us one from another by some mark." 

Bellarmin "Be Sac. ," 2, 1. — "That which actively, proximately, and 
instrumentally effects the grace of justification is that sole external action 
which is called a sacrament, and this is called an opus operatum, being- 
received passively (operatum), so that it is the same for a sacrament to 
confer grace ex opere operato, that it is to confer grace by virtue of the 
sacramental action itself, instituted by God for this end, and not from 
the merit either of the agent or of the receiver. . . . The will of 
God, which uses the sacrament, concurs indeed actively, but is the 
principal cause. The sufferings of Christ concur, but is the meritori- 
ous cause, not however the efficient (cause), since it is not in the act, 
but has passed away, although it remains objectively in the mind of 
God. The power and will of the minister necessarily concur, but they 
are remote causes, for they are required to effect the sacramental action 
itself, which afterwards acts immediately. . . . Will, faith, and re- 
pentance in the adult recipient are necessarily required as dispositions on 
the part of the subject, not as active causes, for not even faith and re- 
pentance can either effect sacramental grace, or give efficacy to the sac- 
rament, but only remove obstacles, which would hinder the sacraments 
from exercising their own efficacy, hence in the case of children, where 
disposition is not required, justification is effected without these things. 
If in order to burn wood, the wood is first dried, the fire struck out from 
the flint, and then applied to the wood, and then combustion ensues, no 
one would say that the immediate cause of the combustion was either 
the dryness, or the striking of fire from the flint, or its application to 
the wood, but that the primary cause is the fire alone, and the instru- 
mental cause is the heating alone." 

The Lutheran Doctrine. "Aug. Con/." p. 13. (Hase). — "Sacra- 
ments have been instituted not only that they might be marks of profes- 
sion among men, but more that they may be signs and testimonies of 



AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS. 601 

the will of God toward us set forth to excite and confirm faith in those 
who use them. " 

"Apol. Augs. Con/.," p. 267. — "And because that in a sacrament there 
are two things, the sign and the word; the word is the New Testament 
promise of the remission of sin . . . and the ceremony is as it were 
a picture of the word or a seal showing the promise. Therefore as the 
promise is ineffective if it be not accepted by faith, so the ceremony is 
ineffective unless faith accedes. And as the word is given to excite this 
faith; so the sacrament is instituted, that this representation meeting the 
eyes may move the heart to believe. " 

lb., p. 203. — "We condemn the whole class of scholastic doctors, who 
teach that to one presenting no obstacle the sacraments confer grace ex 
opere operato, without any good movement of the partaker. But sacra- 
ments are signs of promises, therefore in the use of them faith should 
be present. . . We here speak of the special faith which trusts a 
present promise, which not only believes in general that God is, but 
believes that remission of sins is offered." 

Quenstedt ( Wittenb urg f 1688), Vol. I., p. 169.— "The word of God 
has, from the will and ordination of God himself, even before and beyond 
all legitimate use, an intrinsic power divine and common to all men, and 
sufficient for producing immediately and properly spiritual and divine 
effects, both gracious and punitive." 

' 'Aug. Co nf." Art. 9. — " They condemn the Anabaptists who disap- 
prove of the baptism of children, and who affirm that children can be 
saved without baptism." 

"Apol. Aug. Conf." p. 156. — "The ninth article is approved in which 
we confess, that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that children are 
to be baptized, and that the baptism of children is not void, but neces- 
sary and efficacious to salvation." 

"Art. Smalcald," pars. 3, ch. 8. — "And in respect to these things 
which concern the spoken and outward word, it is steadfastly to be 
maintained, that God grants to no one his Spirit or grace, unless through 
the word and with the word outward and preceding. . . Wherefore 
in this we must constantly persevere, because God does not wish to act 
otherwise with us than through the spoken word and sacraments, and 
because whatever is boasted of, as the Spirit, without the word and sac- 
raments, is the devil himself." 

The Befokmed Doctbine. "Catech. Genev.," p. 519. — "A sacrament 
is an outward attestation of the divine benevolence towards us, which by 
a visible sign figures spiritual graces, for sealing the promises of God to 
our hearts, whereby their virtue may be the better confirmed. Do you 
think that the power and efficacy of the sacrament are embraced not in 
the outward element, but flow only from the Spirit of God ? I think so, 
truly, as it would be pleasing to the Master to exercise his own force 
through his own instrumentalities, to whatever design he destined them. " 

"Gat. Heidelb.," Fr. 66. — "Sacraments are visible, sacred signs and 
seals appointed by God that in their use we may have the promise of the 
gospel made clearer and sealed; to wit, that God for the sake of the one 
oblation of Christ bestows on us forgiveness of sins and eternal life." 

"Thirty -nine Articles," Art. 25. — "Sacraments ordained of Christ be 
not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they 
be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace, and God's good- 
will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not 
only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him. . . . 
And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome 



602 SACRAMENTS. 

effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to 
themselves damnation, as St. Paul saith." 

11 West. Conf. Faith," ch. 27; "L. Cat," Ques. 161-168; "& Cat," 
Ques. 91-93. See above, page 589. 

ZwiNGiiiAN and Kemonsteant Doctehste. Limborch, "Christ. Tlieo." 
5, 66, 31. — "It remains to say that God, through the sacraments, exhib- 
its to us his grace, not by conferring it in fact through them, but by 
representing it and placing it before our eyes through them as clear and 
evident signs. . . And this efficacy is no other than objective, which 
requires a cognitive faculty rightly disposed that it may be able to appre- 
hend that which the sign offers objectively to the mind. . . They 
operate upon us, as signs representing to the mind the thing whose sign 
they are. No other efficacy ought to be sought for in them. " 



CHAPTER XLIL 

BAPTISM: ITS NATURE AND DESIGN, MODE, SUBJECTS, EFFICACY, 
AND NECESSITY. 

The Nature and Design of Baptism. 

1. State the facts ivith regard to the prevalence of washing with 
water, as a symbol of spiritual purification, among the Jews and 
Gentile nations before the advent of Christ. 

No other religious symbol is so natural and obvious, and 
none has been so universally practiced. Its usage is distinctly 
traced among the disciples of Zoroaster, the Brahmen, the 
Egyptians, Greeks, and Komans, and especially the Jews. In 
the original tabernacle, the pattern of which God showed 
Moses on the mount, a large laver stood between the altar on 
which expiation was made for sin, and the Holy House. At 
which laver the priests continually washed ere they entered 
the presence of God. This symbolism penetrated all their re- 
ligious services and language (Ps. xxvi. 6; Heb. ix. 10), and at 
the time of Christ it was carried into all the details of secular 
life (Mark vii. 3, 4). 

The religious washing of the body with water lay, there- 
fore, ready to the use of John the Baptist, and the disciples of 
our Lord. 

2. Was Johns baptism Christian baptism ? 

The " Council of Trent " (Sess. 7, "De Baptismo," can. 1) de- 
cided, "If any one should say that the baptism of John had the 
same effect with the baptism of Christ; let him be anathema." 
For controversial reasons Protestants, especially those of the 
school of Zwingle and Calvin, took the opposite side, and de- 
cided that the two were identical (Calvin's " Instit," Bk. IV., 
Ch. xv., § 7-18, Turretin's "Instit," L. 19, Qua3. 16). 

We believe Calvin, etc., to have been wrong, for the follow- 
ing reason — 

1st. John belonged to the Old and not to the New Testa- 
ment economy. He came " in the spirit and power of Elias," 



604 BAPTISM. 

Luke i. 17, in the garb, with the manners, and teaching the 
doctrine of the ancient prophets (Matt. xi. 13, 14; Luke i. 17). 

2d. His was the " baptism of repentance," binding its sub- 
jects to repentance, but not to the faith and obedience of Christ. 

3d. The Jewish Church yet remained in its old form. The 
Christian Church, as such, did not exist. John preached that 
" the kingdom of heaven was at hand," but he did not by bap- 
tism gather and seal the subjects of that kingdom into a sepa- 
rate visible society. While he lived his personal disciples were 
never merged with those of Christ. 

4th. It was not administered in the name of the Trinity. 

5th. Those baptized by John were rebaptized by Paul (Acts 
xviii. 24-xix. 7). 

3. Were the baptisms practiced by the disciples of Christ previ- 
ous to his crucifixion identical with that practiced by the apostles 
after his ascension? — See John iii. 22 and iv. 1 and 2. 

Up to the time of his death Christ, like John, conformed to 
the usages and taught the doctrines of the Jewish dispensation. 
His crucifixion and resurrection mark the actual transition of 
the new out of the old dispensation. The nature of his king- 
dom and his own divinity, and hence the doctrine of the Trin- 
ity, was not clearly discerned, and the Christian Church as a 
distinct communion was not yet organized. He preached like 
John, " Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," Matt, 
iv. 17, and he commissioned his disciples to say "the kingdom 
of God has come nigh unto you." — Luke x. 9. 

We, therefore, believe that this baptism practiced by his 
disciples before his crucifixion was, like that of John, simply a 
preparatory purifying rite binding to repentance. 

4. Where is the record of the real institution of Christian baptism 
contained ? 

Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. — " Go ye therefore, and disciple (juaQy- 
tsvdars) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to ob- 
serve all things, whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I 
am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." 

5. Prove that its observance is of perpetual obligation. 

This has been denied by Socinians on rationalistic grounds, 
and by Quakers (Barclay, " Apol. Prop.," 12, comm. § 6), on the 
ground of a false spiritualism, and by some parties of Anti- 
Baptists, who hold baptism to have been exclusively designed 
for the initiation of aliens to the church, and therefore not 



ITS ' 'MA TIER ' ' AND < 'FORM. " 605 

to be applied to those born within the church, in established 
Christian communities. 

That it was designed to be observed everywhere and always 
is plain — 1st. From the command given in the words of institu- 
tion. (1.) "All nations," and (2) "alway, even unto the end 
of the world." 2d. The commands and practice of the apostles. 
Acts ii. 38 ; x. 47 ; xvi. 33, etc. 3d. The reason of and neces- 
sity for the ordinance which determined its existence at the 
first, remains and is universal. 4th. The uniform practice of 
the entire church in all its branches from the beginning. 

6. How is baptism defined in our standards ? 

"Con. of Faith," Chap, xxviii. ; "L. Cat.," Q. 165; "S. Cat," 
Q. 94. 

The essential points of this definition are — 1st. It is a wash- 
ing with water. 2d. A washing in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost. 3d. It is done with the design to " sig- 
nify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the 
benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be 
the Lord's." 

7. What is essential to the "matter" of baptism ? 

As to its "matter," baptism is essentially a washing ivith 
ivater. No particular mode of washing is essential — 1st. Be- 
cause no such mode is specified in the command. — See below, 
Questions 12-21. 2d. Because no such mode of administration 
is essential to the proper symbolism of the ordinance. — See be- 
low, Question 11. On the other hand, water is necessary — 1st. 
Because it is commanded. 2d. Because it is essential to the 
symbolism of the rite. It is the natural symbol of moral puri- 
fication, Eph. v. 25, 26 ; and it was established as such in the 
ritual of Moses. 

8. What is necessary as to the form of words in ivhich baptism 
is administered ? 

It is essential to the validity of the ordinance that it should 
be administered u in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost." This is certain — 1st. Because it is 
included in the command. — Matt, xxviii. 19. 2d. From the 
significancy of the rite. Besides being a symbol of purifica- 
tion, it is essentially, as a rite of initiation into the Christian 
church, a covenanting ordinance whereby the recipient recog- 
nizes and pledges his allegiance to God in that character and 
in those relations in which he has revealed himself to us in the 
Scriptures. The formula of baptism, therefore, is a summary 



606 BAPTISM. 

statement of the whole Scripture doctrine of the Triune Jeho- 
vah as he has chosen to reveal himself to us, and in all those 
relations which the several Persons of the Trinity graciously 
sustain in the scheme of redemption to the believer. Hence 
the baptism of all those sects which reject the scriptural doc- 
trine of the Trinity is invalid. 

The frequent phrases, to be baptized in "the name of Jesus 
Christ," or "in the name of the Lord Jesus," or "in the name 
of the Lord" (Acts ii. 38; x. 48; xix. 5), do not at all present 
the form of words which the apostles used in administering 
this sacrament, but are simply used to designate Christian bap- 
tism in distinction from that of John, or to indicate the uni- 
form effect of that spiritual grace which is symbolized in bap- 
tism, viz., union with Christ. — Gal. iii. 27. 

9. What is the meaning of the formula "to baptize in the name 
(szs ro ovofxa) of any one" ? 

To be baptized "in the name of Paul" (si? to ovojua), 1 Cor. 
i. 13, or "unto Moses" (<tfs tov Mgqv6tjv), 1 Cor. x. 2, is, on the 
part of the baptized, to be made the believing and obedient 
disciples of Paul and Moses, and the objects of their care, and 
the participants in whatever blessings they have to bestow. 
To be baptized in the name of the Trinity (Matt, xxviii. 19), or 
"in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts xix. 5), or "into Jesus 
Christ," (Rom. vi. 3), is by baptism, or rather by the grace of 
which ritual baptism is the sign, to be united to Christ, or to 
the Trinity through Christ, as his disciples, believers in his doc- 
trine, heirs of his promises, and participants in his spiritual life. 

10. What is the design of baptism ? 

Its design is — 

1st. Primarily, to signify, seal, and convey to those to whom 
they belong the benefits of the covenant of grace. Thus — 
(1.) It symbolizes "the washing of regeneration," "the renew- 
ing of the Holy Ghost," which unites the believer to Christ, 
and so makes him a participant in Christ's life and all other 
benefits. — 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. iii. 27; Titus iii. 5. (2.) Christ 
herein visibly seals his promises to those who receive it with 
faith, and invests them with the grace promised. 

2d. Its design was, secondarily, as springing from the former, 
(1) to be a visible sign of our covenant to be the Lord's, i. e., to 
accept his salvation, and to consecrate ourselves to his service. 
(2.) And, hence, to be a badge of our public profession, our 
separation from the world, and our initiation into the visible 
church. As a badge it marks us as belonging to the Lord, 



ITS EMBLEMATIC IMPORT. 607 

and consequently (a) distinguishes us from the world, (b) sym- 
bolizes our union with our fellow-Christians. — 1 Cor. xii. 13. 

11. What is tJie emblematic import of baptism? 

In every sacrament there is a visible sign representing an 
invisible grace. The sign represents the grace in virtue of 
Christ's authoritatively appointing it thereto, but the selection 
by Christ of the particular sign is founded on its fitness as a 
natural emblem of the grace which he appoints it to represent. 
Thus in the Lord's supper the bread broken by the officiating 
minister, and the wine poured out, are natural emblems of the 
body of Christ broken, and his blood shed as a sacrifice for our 
sins. And in like manner in the sacrament of baptism the ap- 
plication of water to the person of the recipient is a natural 
emblem of the " washing of regeneration." — Titus hi. 5. Hence 
we are said to be "born of water and of the Spirit," John hi. 5, 
i. e., regenerated by the Holy Spirit, of which new birth baptism 
with water is the emblem ; and to be baptized " by one Spirit 
into one body," i. e., the spiritual body of Christ; and to be 
" baptized into Christ," so as " to have put on Christ," Gal. hi. 
27; and to be "baptized into his death," and to be "buried 
with him in baptism ... so that we should walk with 
him in newness of life," Rom. vi. 3, 4, because the sacrament 
of baptism is the emblem of that spiritual regeneration which 
unites us both federally and spiritually to Christ, so that we 
have part with him both in his life and in his death, and as he 
died unto sin as a sacrifice, so we die unto sin in its ceasing to 
be the controlling principle of our natures ; and as he rose again 
in the resumption of his natural life, we rise to the possession 
and exercise of a new spiritual life. 

Baptist interpreters, on the other hand, insist that the Bible 
teaches that the outward sign in this sacrament, being the im- 
mersion of the whole body in water, is an emblem both of puri- 
fication and of our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. 
Dr. Carson says, p. 381, " The immersion of the whole body is 
essential to baptism, not because nothing but immersion can 
be an emblem of purification, but because immersion is the 
thing commanded, and because that, without immersion, there 
is no emblem of death, burial, and resurrection, which are in the 
emblem equally with purification." He founds his assumption 
that the outward sign in the sacrament of baptism was de- 
signed to be an emblem of the death, burial, and resurrection 
of the believer in union with Christ, upon Rom. vi. 3, 4, and 
Col. ii. 12. 

We object to this interpretation — 1st. In neither of these 
passages does Paul say that our baptism in water is an emblem 



608 BAPTISM. 

of our burial with Christ. He is evidently speaking of that 
spiritual baptism of which water baptism is the emblem ; by 
which spiritual baptism we are caused to die unto sin, and live 
unto holiness, in which death and new life we are conformed 
unto the death and resurrection of Christ. We are said to be 
"baptized into Christ," which is the work of the Spirit, not 
"into the name of Christ," which is the phrase always used 
when speaking of ritual baptism. — Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Acts ii. 38 ; 
xix. 5. 2d. To be "baptized into his death" is a phrase per- 
fectly analogous to baptism "into repentance," Matt. iii. 11, 
and "into remission of sins," Mark i. 4, and "into one body," 
1 Cor. xii. 13, i. e., in order that, or to the effect that, we par- 
ticipate in the benefits of his death. 

3d. The Baptist interpretation involves an utter confusion 
in reference to the emblem. Do they mean that the outward 
sign of immersion is an emblem of the death, burial, and re- 
surrection of Christ, or of the spiritual death, burial, and resur- 
rection of the believer? But the point of comparison in the 
passages themselves is plainly "not between our baptism and 
the burial and resurrection of Christ, but between our death to 
sin and rising to holiness, and the death and resurrection of the 
Kedeemer." 

4th. Baptists agree with us that baptism with water is an 
emblem of spiritual purification, i. e., regeneration, but insist 
that it is also an emblem (in the mode of immersion) of the 
death of the believer to sin and his new life of holiness. — Dr. 
Carson, p. 143. But what is the distinction between regenera- 
tion and a death unto sin, and life unto holiness. 

5th. Baptists agree with us that water baptism is an emblem 
of purification. But surely it is impossible that the same action 
should at the same time be an emblem of a washing, and of a 
burial and a resurrection. One idea may be associated with 
the other in consequence of their spiritual relations, but it is 
impossible that the same visible sign should be emblematical 
of both. 

6th. Our union with Christ through the Spirit, and the spir- 
itual consequences thereof, are illustrated in Scripture by many 
various figures, e. (/., the substitution of a heart of flesh for a 
heart of stone, Ezek. xxxvi. 26 ; the building of a house, Eph. 
ii. 22; the ingrafting of a limb into a vine, John xv. 5; the 
putting off of filthy garments, and the putting on of clean, 
Eph. iv. 22-24; as a spiritual death, burial, and resurrection, 
and as a being planted in the likeness of his death, Eom. 
vi. 3-5; as the application of a cleansing element to the body, 
Ezek. xxxvi. 25. Sow baptism with water represents all these, 
because it is an emblem of spiritual regeneration, of which all of 



ITS MODE. 609 

these are analogical illustrations. Hence we are said to be "bap- 
tized into one body," 1 Cor. xii. 13, and by baptism to "have 
put on Christ," Gal. iii. 27. Yet it would be absurd to regard 
water baptism as a literal emblem of all these, and our Baptist 
brethren have no scriptural warrant for assuming that the out- 
ward sign in this sacrament is an emblem of the one analogy 
more than of the other. — See Dr. Armstrong's "Doctrine of 
Baptisms," Part II., Chap. ii. 

The Mode of Baptism. 

12. What are the words which, in tJie original language of 
Scripture, are used to convey the command to baptize ? 

The primary word pdTtroo occurs four times in the New Tes- 
tament (Luke xvi. 24; John xiii. 26; Rev. xix. 13), but never 
in connection with the subject of Christian baptism. Its clas- 
sical meaning was, 1st, to dip; 2d, to dye; 3d, to wash by 
dipping or pouring. 

The word fiartriZao, in form, though not in usage, the fre- 
quentative of ftdrtTGo, occurs seventy-six times in the New Tes- 
tament, and is the word used by the Holy Ghost to convey the 
command to baptize. Its classical meaning was, (1) dip, sub- 
merge, sink; (2) to wet thoroughly; (3) to pour upon, to drench; 
(4) to overwhelm. Besides these, we have the nouns of the 
same root and usage, (3a.itri6^a occurring twenty-two times, 
translated baptism, and fia7tndjLi6i occurring four times, trans- 
lated baptism, Heb. vi. 2, and ivashing, Mark. vii. 4, 8 ; Heb. ix. 10. 
The only question with which we are concerned, however, is 
as to the scriptural usage of these words. It is an important 
and universally recognized principle, that the biblical and clas- 
sical usage of the same word is often very different. This effect 
is to be traced to the influence of three general causes. — See 
"Baptism, its Modes and Subjects," by Dr. Alex. Carson; "Mean- 
ing and Use of the Word Baptizein," by Rev. Dr. Conant, and 
"Classic, Judaic, Johannic, and Christian Baptism" by Rev. James 
W. Dale, D.D. 

1st. The principal classics of the language were composed 
in the Attic dialect. Bat the general language used by the 
Greek-speaking world at the Christian era was the " common, 
or Hellenic dialect of the later Greek," resulting from the fusion 
of the different dialects previously existing. 

2d. The language of the writers of the New Testament was 
again greatly modified by the fact that their vernacular was a 
form of the Hebrew language (Syro-Chaldaic) ; that their con- 
stant use of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures 
had largely influenced their usage of the Greek language, espe- 
39 



610 BAPTISM. 

cially in the department of religions thought and expression ; 
and that, in the very act of composing the New Testament 
Scriptures, they were engaged in the statement of religions 
ideas, and in the inauguration of religions institutions which 
had their types and symbols in the ancient dispensation, as 
revealed in the sacred language of the Hebrew Scriptures. 

3d. The New Testament writings are a revelation of new 
ideas and relations, and hence the words and phrases through 
which these new thoughts are conveyed must be greatly modi- 
fied in respect to their former etymological sense and heathen 
usage, and "for the full depth and compass of meaning belong- 
ing to them in their new application we must look to the New 
Testament itself, comparing one passage with another, and 
viewing the language used in the light of the great things 
which it brings to our apprehension." 

As examples of this contrast between the scriptural and 
classical usage of a word, observe, ayyaXos, angel; 7tpE6/3vrepos, 
presbyter or elder; exxX^dia, church; fiadiXsia rov Qsov, or raov 
ovparGov, kingdom of God, or of heaven; TtaXiyyEvetiia, regenera- 
tion; xdprty grace, etc., etc. — Fairbairn's " Herm. Manual," Part 
I., section 2. 

13. What is the position of the Baptist churches as to the mean- 
ing of the Scriptural word (ianri^oo, and by ivhat arguments do 
they seek to prove that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism? 

"That it always signifies to dip, never expressing any thing 
but mode." — "Carson on Baptism," p. 55. He confesses: "I 
have all the lexicographers and commentators against me." 
Baptists insist, therefore, upon always translating the words 
fioLitri^GD and fta.Ttri6pia by the words immerse and immersion. 

They argue that immersion is the only valid mode of bap- 
tism — 1st. From the constant meaning of the word fiocuri^Go. 
2d. From the symbolical import of the rite, as emblematic of 
burial and resurrection. 3d. From the practice of the apostles. 
4th. From history of the early church. 

14. What is the position occupied upon this point by all other 
Christians ? 

1st. It is an established principle of scriptural usage that the 
names and attributes of the things signified by sacramental 
signs are attributed to the signs, and on the other hand that 
the name of the sign is used to designate the grace signified. 
Thus^ Gen. xvii. 11, 13, the name of covenant is given to cir- 
cumcision; Matt. xxvi. 26-28, Christ called the bread his body, 
and the wine his blood ; Titus iii. 5, baptism is called the wash- 



WASHING TO EFFECT PURIFICATION. 611 

ing of regeneration. Thus also the words baptize and baptism 
are often used to designate that work of the Holy Ghost in re- 
generation, which the sign, or water baptism, signifies. — Matt, 
iii. 11; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. hi. 27; Deut. xxx. 6. It follows con- 
sequently that these words are often used in a spiritual sense. 

2d. These words when relating to ritual baptism, or the sign 
representing the thing signified, imply the application of water 
in the name of the Trinity, as an emblem of purification or 
spiritual regeneration, and never, in their scriptural usage, sig- 
nify any thing whatever as to the mode in which the water is 
applied. 

The precise question in debate is to be stated thus. Baptists 
insist that Christ's command to baptize is a command to " im- 
merse." All other Christians hold that it is a command to 
" wash with water " as a symbol of spiritual purification. 

I have answered, under Question 11, above, the second Bap- 
tist argument, as stated under Question 13. Their first and 
third arguments, as there stated, I will proceed to answer now. 

15. How may it be proved from their scriptural usage that the 
tvords ftocTtri^oo and (iditTi6^ia do not signify immersion, but wash- 
ing to effect purification, without any reference to mode ? 

1st. The word occurs four times in the Septuagint transla- 
tion of the Old Testament, in three of which instances it refers 
to baptism with water. 2 Kings v. 14 — The prophet told Naa- 
man to "wash and be clean," and "he baptized himself in Jor- 
dan, and he was clean." Eccle. xxxiv. 25 — " He that baptizeth 
himself after the touching of a dead body." This purification 
according to the law was accomplished- by sprinkling the ivater 
of separation. — Num. xix. 9, 13, 20. Judith xii. 7, Judith "bap- 
tized herself in the camp at a fountain of water." Bathing was 
not performed among those nations by immersion; and the cir- 
cumstances in which Judith was placed increase the improb- 
ability in her case. It was a purification, for she " baptized 
herself," and "so came in clean." 

2d. The question agitated between some of John's disciples 
and the Jews, John iii. 22-30, and iv. 1-3, concerning baptism, 
is called a question concerning purification, 7tepl KaBapi6uov. 

3d. Matt. xv. 2; Mark vii. 1-5;' Luke xi. 37-39. The word 
fiaitzi^Go is here used (1) for the customary washing of the 
hands before meals, which w r as designed to purify, and was 
habitually performed by pouring water upon them, 2 Kings 
iii. 11; (2) it is interchanged with the word v litre*), which al- 
ways signifies a partial washing; (3) its effect is declared to 
be to purify, xaQap&iv; (4) the baptized or washed hands are 
opposed to the unclean, uoivais. 



612 . * BAPTISM. 

4th. Mark vii. 4, 8, "Baptism of pots and cups, brazen ves- 
sels, and of tables," uXivai, couches upon which Jews reclined 
at their meals, large enough to accommodate several persons 
at once. The object of these baptisms was purification, and 
the mode could not have been immersion in the case of the 
tables, couches, etc. 

5th. Heb. ix. 10, Paul says the first tabernacle " stood only 
in meats, and drinks, and divers baptisms." In verses 13, 19, 
21, he specifies some of these "divers baptisms "or washings, 
"For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer 
sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh," 
and " Moses sprinkled both the book and all the people, and 
the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry." — Dr. Arm- 
strong's "Doc. of Bapt.," Part T. 

16. What argument in favor of this view of the subject may be 
draiunfrom what is said of baptism with the Holy Ghost ? 

Matt. hi. 11; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16; John i. 26, 33; Acts 
i. 5; xi. 16; 1 Cor. xii. 13. 

If the word ficatziZoo only means to immerse, it would be 
incapable of the figurative use to which, in these passages, it 
is actually subjected. But if, as Ave claim, it signifies to purify, 
to cleanse, then water baptism, as a washing, though never as 
an immersion, may fitly represent the cleansing work of the 
Holy Ghost. See next Question. 

17. What argument may be drawn from the fact that the bless- 
ings symbolized by baptism are said to be applied by sprinkling and 
pouring ? 

The gift of the Holy Ghost was the grace signified. — Acts 
ii. 1-4, 32, 33; x. 44-48; xi. 15, 16. The fire which did not 
immerse them, but appeared as cloven tongues, and " sat upon 
each one of them," was the sign of that grace. Jesus was him- 
self the baptizer, who now fulfilled the prediction of John the 
Baptist that he should baptize with the Holy Ghost and with 
fire. This gift of the Holy Ghost is set forth in such terms as 
"came from heaven," "poured out," "shed forth," "fell on 
them." 

These very blessings were predicted in the Old Testament 
by similar language. — Is. xliv. 3; Hi. 15; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27; 
Joel ii. 28, 29. Hence we argue that if these spiritual blessings 
were predicted in the Old Testament by means of these figures 
of sprinkling and pouring, and if in the New Testament they 
were symbolically set forth under the same form, they may, of 
course, be symbolized, by the church now by the same emblem- 
atical actions. 



OLD TESTAMENT MODES OF PURIFICATION. 613 

18. What argument may be drawn from the mode of purifica- 
tion adopted under the Old Testament ? 

The rites of purification prescribed by the Levitical law 
were in no case commanded to be performed by immersion in 
the case of persons. Washing and bathing is prescribed, but 
there is no indication given by the words used, or otherwise, 
that these were performed by immersion, which was not the 
usual mode of bathing practiced in those countries. The hands 
and feet of the priests, whenever they appeared to minister 
before the Lord, were washed, Ex. xxx. 18-21, and their per- 
sonal ablutions were performed at the brazen laver, 2 Chron. 
iv. 6, from which the water poured forth through spouts or 
cocks. — 1 Kings vii. 27-39. On the other hand, purification 
was freely ordered to be effected by sprinkling of blood, ashes, 
or water. — Lev. viii. 30; xiv. 7 and 51; Ex. xxiv. 5-8; Num. 
viii. 6, 7 ; Heb. ix. 12-22. Now, as Christian baptism is a puri- 
fication, and as it was instituted among the Jews, familiar with 
the Jewish forms of purification, it follows that a knowledge 
of those forms must throw much light upon the essential nature 
and proper mode of the Christian rite. 

19. How may it be shown from 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, and from 1 Pet. 
iii. 20, 21, that to baptize does not mean to immerse ? 

1 Cor. x. 1, 2. The Israelites are said to have been "bap- 
tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," — Compare Ex. 
xiv. 19-31. The Israelites were baptized, yet went over dry- 
shod. The Egyptians were immersed, yet not baptized. Dr. 
Carson, p. 413, says, Moses " got a dry dip." 

1 Pet. iii. 20, 21. Peter declares that baptism is the anti- 
type of the salvation of the eight souls in the ark. Yet their 
salvation consisted in their not being immersed. 

20. What argument as to the proper mode of baptism is to be 
drawn from the record of the baptisms performed by John ? 

1st. John's baptism was not the Christian sacrament, but a 
rite of purification administered by a Jew upon Jews, under 
Jewish law. From this we infer (1) that it was not performed 
by immersion, since the Levitical purification of persons was 
not performed in that way; yet (2) that he needed for his 
purpose either a running stream as Jordan, or much water as 
at JEnon (or the springs), because under that law whatsoever 
an unclean person touched previous to his purification became 
unclean, Num. xix. 21, 22, with the exception of a "fountain or 
pit in which is plenty of water," Lev. xi. 36, which he could not 
find in the desert in which he preached. After the gospel dis- 



614 BAPTISM. 

pensation was introduced we hear nothing of the apostles bap- 
tizing in rivers, or needing "much water" for that purpose. 

2d. In no single instance is it stated in the record that John 
baptized by immersion. All the language employed applies 
just as naturally and as accurately to a baptism performed by 
affusion (the subject standing partly in the water, the baptizer 
pouring water upon the person with his hand). The phrases 
"baptized in Jordan," "coming out of the water," would have 
been as accurately applied in the one case as in the other. 
That John's baptism was more probably performed by affusion 
appears (1) from the fact that it was a purification performed 
by a Jewish prophet upon Jews, and that Jewish washings 
were performed by affusion. The custom was general then, 
and has continued to this day. (2.) This mode better accords 
with the vast multitudes baptized by one man. — Matt. iii. 5, 6; 
Mark i. 5; Luke iii. 3-21. (3.) The very earliest works of 
Christian art extant represent the baptism of Christ by John 
as having been performed by affusion. — Dr. Armstrong's "Doc- 
trine of Baptisms," Part II., Chap. iii. 

21. What evidence is afforded by the instances of Christian 
baptism recorded in the New Testament? 

1st. It has been abundantly shown above that the command 
to baptize is a command to purify by washing with water, and 
it hence follows that even if it could be shown that the apostles 
baptized by immersion, that fact would not prove that particu- 
lar mode of washing to be essential to the validity of the or- 
dinance, unless it can be proved also that, according to the 
analogies of gospel institutions, the mere mode of obeying a 
command is made as essential as the thing itself. But the 
reverse is notoriously the fact. The church was organized on 
certain general principles, and the public worship of the gospel 
ordained, but the details as to the manner of accomplishing 
those ends are not prescribed. Christ instituted the Lord's 
supper at night, reclining on a couch, and with unleavened 
bread. Yet in none of these respects is the "mode" essential. 

2d. But, in fact, there is not one instance in which the 
record makes it even probable that the apostles baptized by 
immersion, and in the great majority of instances it is rendered 
in the last degree improbable. 

(1.) The baptism of the eunuch by Philip, Acts viii. 26-39, is 
the only instance which even by appearance favors immersion. 
But observe («) the language used by Luke, even as rendered in 
our version, applies just as naturally to baptism performed by 
affusion as by immersion, (b.) The Greek prepositions, e£s, here 
translated into, and eh, here translated out of, are in innumerable 



HISTORICAL USAGE. 615 

instances used to express motion, toward, unto, and from. — Acts 
xxvi. 14; xxvii. 34, 40. They probably descended from the 
chariot to the brink of the water. Philip is also said to have 
"descended to" and to have "ascended from the water," but 
surely he was not also immersed, (c.) The very passage of 
Isaiah, which the eunuch was reading, Is. lii. 15, declared that 
the Messiah, in whom he believed, should " sprinkle many na- 
tions." (d.) Luke says the place was "a desert," and no body 
of water sufficient for immersion can be discovered on that 
road. (2.) Every other instance of Christian baptism recorded 
in the Scriptures bears evidence positively against immersion, 
(a.) The baptism of three thousand in Jerusalem on one occa- 
sion on the day of Pentecost. — Acts ii. 38-41. (b.) The baptism 
of Paul. — Acts ix. 17, 18; xxii. 12-16. Ananias said to him 
"standing up, be baptized," dvadrds /Sdiendaz, and, "standing 
up, he was baptized." (c.) The baptism of Cornelius. — Acts x. 
44-48. (d.) The baptism of the jailor, at Philippi. — Acts xvi. 
32-34. In all these instances baptism was administered on the 
spot, wherever the convert received the gospel. Nothing is 
said of rivers, or much water, but vast multitudes at a time, 
and individuals and families were baptized in their houses, or 
in prisons, wherever they happened to be at the moment. 

22. What has been in the past, and what is in the present, the 
usage of the churches as to the mode of baptism ? 

In the early church the prevalent mode was to immerse the 
naked body. For several ages trine-immersion was practiced, 
or the dipping the head of the person standing in the water 
three times. In cases of extreme danger of death, and when 
water was scarce, affusion or sprinkling was considered valid 
(Bingham's " Christ. Antiquities," Bk. II., ch. xi. ; Neander's 
"Ch. Hist," Vol. I., Torrey's Trans., p. 310; Schaff's "Ch. 
Hist.," Vol. II., § 92). The Greek Church has insisted on im- 
mersion. The Komish and Protestant churches admit either 
form. The modern customs favor sprinkling. 

The Baptists maintain that immersion is the only valid bap- 
tism. All other western churches deny this and maintain the 
equal validity of pouring and of sprinkling. — "Con. Faith," 
ch. xxviii., § 3. 

No advocate of sprinkling can, in consistency with his own 
fundamental principles or with the historical usages of the 
Christian Church, outlaw immersion. The opposition of most 
churches to immersion arises from the narrow and arrogant 
claims of the Baptists, and from their false views with respect 
to the emblematic import of baptism, making it a "burying' 
instead of a "washing"; against this we mean to protest. 



616 BAPTISM. 

Subjects of Baptism. 

23. Who are the proper subjects of baptism ? 

"Conf. Faith," Chap, xxviii., Section 4; "L. Cat," Question 
166; U S. Cat.," Question 95. 

All those, and those only, who are members of the visible 
church, are to be baptized. These are, 1st, they who make a 
credible profession of their faith in Christ; 2d, the children of 
one or both believing parents. 

24. What in the case of adults are the prerequisites of baptism ? 

Credible profession of their faith in Jesus as their Saviour. 
This is evident — 1st. From the very nature of the ordinance as 
symbolizing spiritual gifts, and as sealing our covenant to be 
the Lord's. 2d. From the uniform practice of the apostles and 
evangelists. — Acts ii. 41; viii. 37. For a full answer to this 
question, see below Ch. XLIIL, Ques. 25, for conditions of ad- 
mission to Lord's table, which are identical with those requisite 
for baptism. 

25. Upon what essential constitutional principle of human nature 
does this institution rest? and show how that principle is recognized 
in all God's providential and gracious dealing with the race. 

The grand peculiarity of humanity is that while each indi- 
vidual is a free responsible moral agent, yet we constitute a 
race, reproduced under the law of generation, and each new- 
born agent is educated and his character formed under social 
conditions. Hence everywhere the "free-will of the parent 
becomes the destiny of the child." Hence results the repre- 
sentative character of progenitors, and the inherited character 
and destiny of all races, nations, and families. 

This principle runs through all God's dealing with the hu- 
man race under the economy of redemption. The family and 
not the individual is the unit embraced in all covenants and 
dispensations. This may be traced in all God's dealings with 
Adam, Noah (Gen. ix. 9), Abraham (Gen. xvii. 7, and Gal. iii. 8), 
and the nation of Israel (Ex. xx. 5; Deut. xxix. 10-13). The 
same principle is continued in the Christian dispensation as 
asserted by Peter in the first sermon. — Acts ii. 38-39. 

26. What is the visible church, to which baptism is the initiating 
rite ? 

1st. The word church, kKuXrjtiict, is used in Scripture in the 
general sense of the company of God's people, called out from 
the world, and bound to him in covenant relations. 



THE VISIBLE CHURCH 617 

2d. The true spiritual church, therefore, in distinction to the 
phenomenal church organized on earth, consists of the whole 
company of the elect, who are included in the eternal covenant 
of grace formed between the Father and the second Adam. — 
Eph. v. 27 ; Heb. xii. 23. 

3d. But the visible church universal consists of " all those 
throughout the world that profess the true religion, together 
with their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no 
ordinary possibility of salvation." — "Conf. Faith," chap, xxv., 
section 2. This visible kingdom, Christ, as Mediator of the 
covenant of grace, has instituted, as an administrative provi- 
sion, for the purpose of administering thereby the provisions of 
that covenant; and this kingdom, as an outward visible society 
of professors, he established by the covenant he made with 
Abraham. — Gen. xii. 1-3; xvii. 1-14. 

4th. Christ has administered this covenant in three successive 
modes or dispensations. (1.) From Abraham to Moses, dur- 
ing which he attached to it the ratifying seal of circumcision. 
(2.) From Moses to his advent (for the law which was tem- 
porarily added did not make the promise of none effect, but 
rather administered it in a special mode, Gal. iii. 17), he added 
a new seal, the passover, emblematic of the atoning work of 
the promised seed, as set forth in the clearer revelation then 
vouchsafed. (3.) From Christ to the end of the world, when 
the promise being unfolded in an incomparably fuller revelation, 
the original seals are superseded by baptism and the Lord's 
Supper. See below, Question 26. 

5th. That the Abrahamic covenant was designed to embrace 
the visible church of Christ, and not his mere natural seed in 
their family or national capacity, is plain. (1.) It pledged sal- 
vation by Christ on the condition of faith. — Compare Gen. xii. 3, 
with Gal. iii. 8, 16; Acts iii. 25, 26. (2.) The sign and seal at- 
tached to it symbolized spiritual blessings, and sealed justifica- 
tion by faith. — Deut. x. 15, 16; xxx. 6; Jer. iv. 4; Rom. ii. 28, 29; 
iv. 11. (3.) This covenant was made with him as the repre- 
sentative of the visible church universal, («.) It was made 
with him as the "father of many nations." Paul said it con- 
stituted him the "heir of the world," "the father of all them 
that believe," Rom. iv. 11, 13, and that all believers in Christ 
now, Jew or Gentile, are "Abraham's seed and heirs according 
to the promise." — Gal. iii. 29. (h.) It contained a provision for 
the introduction to its privileges of those who were not born 
of the natural seed of Abraham. — Gen. xvii. 12. Multitudes of 
such proselytes had been thus introduced before the advent 
of Christ, and many such were present in Jerusalem as mem- 



618 BAPTISM. 

bers of the church under its old form on the day of Pentecost, 
"out of every nation under heaven." — Acts ii. 5-11. 

6th. That the church thus embraced in this administrative 
covenant is not the body of the elect, as such, but the visible 
church of professors and their children, is evident, because, 
(1.) the covenant contains the offer of the gospel, including 
the setting forth of Christ, and the offer of his salvation to all 
men (all the families of the earth) on the condition of faith. 
Gal. iii. 8. But this belongs to the visible church, and must be 
administered by means of inspired oracles and a visible minis- 
try. (2.) As an indisputable fact, there was such a visible 
society under the old dispensation; and under the new dispen- 
sation all Christians, whatever theories they may entertain, 
attempt to realize the ideal of such a visible society, for Chris- 
tian and ministerial communion. (3.) Under both dispensations 
Christ has committed to his church, as to a visible kingdom, 
written records, sacramental ordinances, ecclesiastical institu- 
tions, and a teaching and ruling ministry. Although these are 
all designed to minister the provisions of the covenant of grace, 
and to effect as their ultimate end the ingathering of the elect, 
it is evident that visible signs and seals, a written word and a 
visible ministry, can, as such, attach only to a visible church. 
Kom. ix. 4; Eph. iv. 11. (4.) The same representation of the 
church is given in the New Testament, in the parable of the 
tares, etc. — Matt. xiii. 24-30 and 47-50 ; xxv. 1-13. It was to 
consist of a mixed community of good and evil, true and merely 
professed believers, and the separation is not to be made until 
the "end of the world." 

7th. This visible church from the beginning has been trans- 
mitted and extended in a twofold manner. (1.) Those who are 
born "strangers from the covenants of promise," or "aliens 
from the commonAvealth of Israel," Eph. ii. 12, were introduced 
to that relation only by profession of faith and conformity of 
life. Under the old dispensation these are called proselytes. 
Acts ii. 10; Num. xv. 15. (2.) All born within the covenant 
had part in all of the benefits of a standing in the visible church 
by inheritance. The covenant was wdth Abraham and his 
"seed after him, in all their generations, as an everlasting covenant," 
and consequently they received the sacrament which was the 
sign and seal of that covenant. Hence the duty of teaching 
and training was engrafted on the covenant, Gen. xviii. 18, 19; 
and the church made a school, or training institution, Deut. 
vi. 6-9. In accordance with this, Christ commissioned his 
apostles to disciple all nations, baptizing and teaching them. 
Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. Thus the church is represented as a flock, 
including the lambs with the sheep, Is. xl. 11, and as a vine- 



THE CHURCH ONE UNDER BOTH DISPENSATIONS. 619 

yard in which the scion is trained, the barren tree cultivated, 
and, if incurable, cut down. — Is. v. 1-7 ; Luke xiii. 7, 8. 

27. How may it be shown that this visible church is identical 
under both dispensations, and ichat argument may be thence derived 
to prove that the infant children of believers should be baptized ? 

1st. The church, under both dispensations, has the same 
nature and design. The Old Testament church, embraced in 
the Abrahamic covenant, rested on the gospel offer of salvation 
by faith. — Gal. hi. 8; Heb. xi. Its design was to prepare a 
spiritual seed for the Lord. Hence — (1.) Its foundation was 
the same — the sacrifice and mediation of Christ. (2.) Condi- 
tions of membership were the same, (a.) Every true Israelite 
was a true believer. — Gal. hi. 7. (b.) All Israelites were at least 
professors of the true religion. (3.) Its sacraments symbolized 
and sealed the same grace as those of the New Testament 
church. Thus the passover, as the Lord's Supper, represented 
the sacrifice of Christ. — 1 Cor. v. 7. Circumcision, as baptism, 
represented "the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," 
and baptism is called by Paul "the circumcision of Christ." 
Col. ii. 11, 12. Even the ritual of the Mosaic law was only a 
symbolical revelation of the gospel. 

2d. They bear precisely the same name. EKxXrj6ia uvpiov, 
the church of the Lord, is an exact rendering in Greek of the 
Hebrew Prtrp ?np translated in our version the " congregation of 
the Lord." — Compare Ps. xxii. 22, with Heb. ii. 12. Thus 
Stephen called the congregation of Israel before Sinai "the 
church in the wilderness." — Compare Acts vii. 38, with Ex. 
xxxii. Thus also Christ is the Greek form of the Hebrew 
3Iessiah, and the elders of the New Testament church are iden- 
tical in function and name with those of the synagogue. 

3d. There is no evidence whatever furnished by the apos- 
tolical records that the ancient church was abolished and a 
new and a different one organized in its place. The apostles 
never say one word about any such new organization. The 
pre-existence of such a visible society is everywhere taken for 
granted as a fact. Their disciples were always added to the 
"church" or "congregation" previously existing. — Acts ii. 47. 
The Mosaic ritual law, by means of which the Abrahamic char- 
acter of the church had been administered for about fifteen 
hundred years, was indeed abolished. But Paul argues that 
the introduction of this law, four hundred and thirty years 
after, could not make the promise of none effect, Gal. iii. 17, 
and consequently the disannulling of the law could only give 
place to the more perfect execution of the covenant, and devel- 
opment of the church embraced within it. 



620 BAPTISM. 

4th. There is abundant positive evidence that the ancient 
church, resting upon its original charter, was not abolished by 
the new dispensation. (1.) Many of the Old Testament proph- 
ecies plainly declare that the then existing visible church, instead 
of being abrogated by the advent of the Messiah, should thereby 
be gloriously strengthened and enlarged, so as to embrace the 
Gentiles also. — Is. xlix. 13-23, and lx. 1-14. They declare also 
that the federal constitution, embracing the child with the par- 
ent, shall continue under the new dispensation of the church, 
after " the Redeemer has come to Zion." — Is. lix. 21, 22. Peter, 
in Acts iii. 22, 23, expounds the prophecy of Moses, Deut xviii. 
15-19, to the effect that every soul which will not hear that 
prophet (the Messiah) shall be cut off from among the people, 
i. e., from the church, which of course implies that the church 
from which they are cut off continues. (2.) In precise accord- 
ance with these prophecies Paul declares that the Jewish church 
was not abrogated, but that the unbelieving Jews were cut off 
from their own olive-tree, and the Gentile branches grafted in 
in their place ; and he foretells the time when God will graft 
the Jews back again into their own stock and not into another. 
Rom. xi. 18-26. He says that the alien Gentiles are made fel- 
low-citizens with believing Jews in the old household of the 
faith. — Eph. ii. 11-22. (3.) The covenant which constituted the 
ancient church also constituted Abraham the father of many na- 
tions. The promise of the covenant was that God would " be 
a God unto him and to his seed after him." This covenant, 
therefore, embraced the "many nations" with their father 
Abraham. Hence it never could have been fulfilled until the 
advent of the Messiah, and the abolishment of the restrictive 
law. Hence the Abrahamic covenant, instead of having been 
superseded by the gospel, only now begins to have its just ac- 
complishment. Hence, on the day of Pentecost, Peter exhorts 
all to repent and be baptized, because the Abrahamic covenant 
still held in force for all Jews and for their children, and for 
all those afar off, i. e., Gentiles, as many as God should call. 
Acts ii. 38, 39. Hence also Paul argued earnestly that since 
the Abrahamic covenant is still in force, therefore, from its very 
terms, the Gentiles who should believe in Christ had a right to 
a place in that ancient church, which was founded upon it, 
on equal terms with the Jews. " In thee shall all nations be 
blessed, so then," says Paul, "they which be of faith are blessed 
with faithful Abraham," and all who believe in Christ, Jew or 
Gentile indiscriminately, "are," to the full intent of the cove- 
nant, "Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise," 
Gal. iii. 6-29, which promise was, " I will be a God to thee, and 

TO THY SEED AFTER THEE." 



CHURCH MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN RECOGNIZED. 621 

The bearing of this argument upon the question of infant 
baptism is direct and conclusive. 

1st. Baptism now occupies the same relation to the covenant 
and the church which circumcision did. (1.) Both rites repre- 
sent the same spiritual grace, namely, regeneration. — Deut. xxx. 
6; Col. ii. 11; Bom. vi. 3, 4 (2.) Baptism is now what circum- 
cision was, the seal, .or confirming sign, of the Abrahamic cov- 
enant. Peter says, " be baptized for the promise is to you and 
to your children." — Acts ii. 38, 39. Paul says explicitly that 
baptism is the sign of that covenant, "for as many as have 
been baptized into Christ are Abraham's seed, and heirs accord- 
ing to the promise," Gal. iii. 27, 29; and that baptism is the 
circumcision of Christ. — Col. ii. 10, 11. (3.) Both rites are 
the appointed forms, in successive eras, of initiation into the 
church, which we have proved to be the same church under 
both dispensations. 

2d. Since the church is the same, in the absence of all ex- 
plicit command to the contrary, the members are the same. 
Children of believers were members then. They ought to be 
recognized as members now, and receive the initiatory rite. 
This the apostles took for granted as self-eA'ident, and univer- 
sally admitted; an explicit command to baptize would have 
implied doubt in the ancient church rights of infants. 

3d. Since the covenant, with its promise to be " a God to 
the believer and his seed," is expressly declared to stand firm 
under the gospel, the believer's seed have a right to the seal 
of that promise. — Dr. John M. Mason's "Essays on the Church." 

28. Present the evidence that Christ recognized the church stand- 
ing of children. 

1st. Christ declares of little children (Matthew, xcaSia, Luke 
/3peq>7/, infants) that " of such is the kingdom of heaven." — Matt. 
xix.. 14; Luke xviii. 16. The phrase "kingdom of God and of 
heaven" signifies the visible church under the new dispensa- 
tion. — Matt. iii. 2; xiii. 47. 

2d. In his recommission of Peter, after his apostasy, our 
Lord commanded him. as under shepherd, to feed the Jambs, as 
well as the sheep of the flock. — John xxi. 15-17. 

3d. In his general commission of the apostles, he com- 
manded them to disciple nations (which are always consti- 
tuted of families) by baptizing, and then teaching them. — 
Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 

29. Shoiv that the apostles always acted on the principle thai the 
child is a church member if the parent is. 

The apostles were not settled pastors in the midst of an es- 



622 BAPTISM. 

tablishecl Christian community, but itinerant missionaries to 
an unbelieving world, sent not to baptize, but to preach the 
gospel. — 1 Cor i. 17. Hence we have in the Acts and Epistles 
the record of only ten separate instances of baptism. In two 
of these, viz., of the eunuch and of Paul, Acts viii. 38; ix. 18, 
there were no families to be baptized. In the case of the three 
thousand on the day of Pentecost, the people of Samaria, and 
the disciples of John at Ephesus, crowds were baptized on the 
very spot on which they professed to believe. Of the remain- 
ing five instances, in the four cases in which the family is men- 
tioned at all, it is expressly said they were baptized, viz., the 
households of Lydia of Thyatira, of the jailer of Philippi, of 
Stephanas, and of Crispus. — Acts xvi. 15, 32, 33; xviii. 8; 1 Cor. 
i. 16. In the remaining instance of Cornelius, the record im- 
plies that the family was also baptized. Thus the apostles, in 
every case, without a single recorded exception, baptized be- 
lievers on the spot, and whenever they had families, they also 
baptized their households, as such. 

They also addressed children in their epistles as members 
of the church. — Compare Eph. i. 1, and Col. i. 1, 2, with Eph. 
vi. 1-3, and Col. iii. 20. And declared that even the children of 
only one believing parent were to be regarded " holy," or con- 
secrated to the Lord, i. e., as church members. — 1 Cor. vii. 12-14. 

30. What argument may be inferred from the fact that the bless- 
ings symbolized in baptism are promised and granted to children ? 

Baptism represents regeneration in union with Christ. In- 
fants are born children of wrath, even as others. They can 
not be saved, therefore, unless they are born again, and have 
part in the benefits of Christ's death. They are evidently, 
from the nature of the case, in the same sense capable of being 
subjects of regeneration as adults are. " Of such is the king- 
dom of heaven." — Matt. xxi. 15, 16; Luke i. 41, 44. 

31. What argument may be drawn from the 'practice of the 
early church? 

The practice of infant baptism is an institution which exists 
as a fact, and prevails throughout the universal church, with 
the exception of the modern Baptists, whose origin can be def- 
initely traced to the Anabaptists of Germany, about a. d. 1537. 
Such an institution must either have been handed down from 
the apostles, or have had a definite commencement as a nov- 
elty, which must have been signalized by opposition and con- 
troversy. As a fact, however, we find it noticed in the very 
earliest records as a universal custom, and an apostolical tradi- 



INFANT BAPTISM APOSTOLICAL. 623 

tion. Justin Martyr, writing a. d. 138, says that "There were 
among Christians of his time, many persons of both sexes, some 
sixty and some seventy years old, who had been made disciples 
of Christ from their infancy." Irenseus, born about a. d. 97, 
says, " He came to save all by himself; all I say who by him are 
horn again unto God, infants, and little children and youths." It 
is acknowledged by Tertullian, born in Carthage, a. d. 160. or 
only sixty years after the death of the apostle John. Origen, 
born of Christian parents in Egypt, a. d. 185, declares that it 
was "the usage of the church to baptize infants," and that 
"the church had received the tradition from the apostles." 
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage from a. d. 248 to 258, together 
with an entire synod over which he presided, decided that 
baptism should be administered to infants before the eighth 
day. St. Augustine, born a. d. 358, declared that this " doc- 
trine is held by the whole church, not instituted by councils, 
but always retained." This Pelagius admitted, after having 
visited all parts of the church from Britain to Syria, although 
the fact was so repugnant to his system of doctrine. — See Wall's 
"Hist, of Infant Baptism," and Bingham's "Christ. Antiquities," 
Bk. XI, Ch. iv. 

Our argument is that infant baptism has prevailed (a) from 
the apostolic age, (b) in all sections of the ancient church, (c) 
uninterruptedly to the present time, (d) in every one of the 
great historical churches of the Reformation. While its im- 
pugners (a) date since the Reformation, (b) and are generally 
guilty of the gross schismatical sin of close communion. 

32. How is the objection, that faith is a prerequisite to baptism, 
and that infants can not believe, to be ansivered ? 

The Baptists argue — 1st. From the commission of the Lord, 
"Go preach — he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; 
he that believeth not shall be damned," Mark xvi. 16, that infants 
ought not to be baptized because they can not believe. 2d. From 
the nature of baptism, as a sign of a spiritual grace and seal of 
a covenant, that infants ought not to be baptized, since they 
are incapable of understanding the sign, or of contracting the 
covenant. 

We answer — 1st. The requisition of faith evidently applies 
only to the adult, because faith is made the essential prere- 
quisite of salvation, and yet infants are saved, though they can 
not believe. 2d. Circumcision was a sign of a spiritual grace ; 
it required faith in the adult recipient, and it was the seal of 
a covenant; yet, by God's appointment, infants were circum- 
cised. The truth is that faith is required, but it is the faith of 
the parent acting for his child. The covenant of which bap- 



624 BAPTISM. 

tism is the seal is contracted with the parent, in behalf of the 
child npon whom the seal is properly applied. 

It is besides to be remembered that the infant is not a thing, 
but a person born with an unholy moral nature, and fully ca- 
pable of present regeneration, and of receiving from the Holy 
Ghost the "habit" or state of soul of which faith is the expres- 
sion. Hence Calvin says ("Instit.," Bk. 4, ch. xvi., § 20), "The 
seed of both repentance and faith lies hid in them by the secret 
operation of the Spirit." 

33. Hoiv can we avoid the conclusion that infants should he ad- 
mitted to the Lord's Supper, if they are admitted to baptism ? 

The same reason and the same precedents do not hold in 
relation to both sacraments. 1st. Baptism recognizes and seals 
church membership, while the Lord's Supper is a commemora- 
tive act. 2d. In the action of baptism the subject is passive, 
and in that of the Lord's Supper active. 3d. Infants were never 
admitted to the Passover until they were capable of compre- 
hending the nature of the service. 4th. The apostles baptized 
households, but never admitted households as such to the 
Supper. 

34. Whose children ought to be baptized ? 

"Infants of such as are members of the visible church," 
"S. Cat.," Q. 95; that is, theoretically, "infants of one or both 
believing parents," "Con. of Faith," Chap, xxviii., sec. 4; and 
practically, " of parents, one or both of them professing faith 
in Christ." — "L. Cat.," Q. 166. Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, 
the Protestants of the continent, the Presbyterians of Scotland 
(and formerly of this country), act upon the principle that 
every baptized person, not excommunicated, being himself a 
member of the visible church, has a right to have his child 
regarded and treated as such also. Even when parents are 
unbelievers Catholics and Episcopalians will baptize their in- 
fants upon the faith of sponsors. 

It is evident, however, that only the children of such parents, 
or actual guardians, as make a credible profession of personal 
faith ought to be baptized. 1st. Because of the nature of the 
act. Faith is the condition of the covenant of which baptism is 
the seal. The Gen. Assembly of 1794 decided that our "Direc- 
tory for Worship " demands that the parent enters before God 
and the Church into an express engagement," "that they pray 
with and for the child, that they set an example of piety and 
godliness before it," etc. And the Gen. Synod of 1735 asserts 
that if other than parents professing piety are encouraged to 
take these engagements "the seal would be set to a blank" 



THE EFFICACY OF BAPTISM. 625 

("Moore's Digest," pp. 665 and 666). Hence it is evident that 
the conditions prerequisite for having one's children baptized 
are precisely the same with those prerequisite for being bap- 
tized or admitted to the Lord's Supper one's self, i. e., credible 
profession of a true faith. 

2d. Sponsors who are neither parents nor actual and per- 
manent guardians are evidently neither the providentially con- 
stituted representatives of the child, nor in a position to make 
good their engagements. 

3d. Those who, having been baptized, do not by faith and 
obedience discharge their baptismal vows when they are of 
mature age, are ipso facto in a state of suspension from cove- 
nant privileges, and can not, therefore, plead them for their 
children. 

4th. The apostles baptized the households only of those 
who professed faith in Christ. 

The Efficacy of Baptism. 

35. What is the Romish and Ritualistic doctrine as to the effi- 
cacy of baptism. 

The Romish doctrine, with which the "Tractarian" doctrine 
essentially agrees, is, 1st, that baptism confers the merits of 
Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost, and therefore (1) it 
cleanses from inherent corruption; (2) it secures the remission 
of the penalty of sin; (3) it secures the infusion of sanctify- 
ing grace; (4) it unites to Christ; (5) it impresses upon the 
soul an indelible character; (6) it opens the portals of heaven. 
Newman, "Lectures on Justification," p. 257; "Cat. Rom.," 
Pt. II., Chap, ii., Q. 32-44. 2d. That the efficacy of the ordi- 
nance is inherent in itself in virtue of the divine institution. 
Its virtue does not depend either on the merit of the officiating 
minister, nor on that of the recipient, but in the sacramental 
action itself as an opus operatum. In the case of infants, the 
only condition of its efficiency is the right administration of 
the ordinance. In the case of adults its efficiency depends 
upon the additional condition that the recipient is not in mor- 
tal sin, and does not resist by an opposing will. — Dens "De 
Baptismo," N. 29. 

36. What is the Lutheran doctrine on this subject ? 

The Lutherans agreed with the Reformed churches in repu- 
diating the Romish doctrine of the magical efficacy of this 
sacrament as an opus operatum. But they went much further 
than the Reformed in maintaining the sacramental union be- 
tween the sign and the grace signified. Luther, in his "Small 
40 



626 BAPTISM. 

Cat.," Pt. iv., sec. 2, says baptism, " worketh forgiveness of sins, 
delivers from death and the devil, and confers everlasting sal- 
vation on all who believe," and, in sec. 3, that "it is not the 
water indeed which produces these effects, but the word of God 
which accompanies, and is connected with the water, and our 
faith, which relies on the word of God connected with the 
water. For the water without the word is simply water and 
no baptism. But when connected with the word of God, it is 
a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life, and a washing of 
regeneration." This efficacy depends upon true saving faith 
in the adult subject: "Moreover, faith being absent, it remains 
only a naked and inoperative sign." 

Hence they hold — 1st. Baptism is an efficient means of con- 
ferring the forgiveness of sins and the grace of Christ. 2d. It 
contains the grace it confers. 3d. Its efficacy resides not in 
the water but in the word, and in the Holy Spirit in the word. 
4th. its efficacy, in the case of the adult, depends upon the 
faith of the subject. Krauth's " Conservative Reformation," 
pp. 545-584 

37. What teas the Zwinglian doctrine on this subject ? 

That the outward rite is a mere sign, an objective rep- 
resentation by symbol of the truth, having no efficacy what- 
ever beyond that due to the truth represented. 

38. What is the doctrine of the Reformed churches, and of our 
own among the number, on this subject ? 

They all agree, 1st, that the Zwinglian view is incomplete. 

2d. That besides being a sign, baptism is also the seal of 
grace, and therefore a present and sensible conveyance and con- 
firmation of grace to the believer who has the witness in him- 
self, and to all the elect a seal of the benefits of the covenant 
of grace, to be sooner or later conveyed in God's good time. 

3d. That this conveyance is effected, not by the bare opera- 
tion of the sacramental action, but by the Holy Ghost, which 
accompanies his own ordinance. 

4th. That in the adult the reception of the blessing depends 
upon faith. 

5th. That the benefits conveyed by baptism are not peculiar 
to it, but belong to the believer before or without baptism, and 
are often renewed to him afterwards. 

Our " Conf. Faith," Chap, xxviii., sections 5 and 6, affirms, 

" 1st. ' That by the right use of this ordinance the grace 
promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred 
by the Holy Ghost to such (whether of age or infants), as that 
grace belongeth unto.' 



DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 627 

c< 2d. That baptism does not in all cases secure the blessings 
of the covenant. 

"3d. That in the cases in which it does the gift is not 
connected necessarily in time with the administration of the 
ordinance. 

"4th. That these blessings depend upon two things: (1) the 
right use of the ordinance; (2) the secret purpose of God."' — 
Dr. Hodge. 

39. What in general is the doctrine knoivn as Baptismal Regen- 
eration ? On what ground does it rest ? and how can it be shown 
to be false ? 

The Protestant advocates of Baptismal Regeneration, with- 
out committing themselves to the Romish theory of an opus 
operatum, -hold that baptism is God's ordained instrument of 
communicating the benefits of redemption in the first instance. 
That whatever gracious experiences may be enjoyed by the 
unbaptized, are uncovenanted mercies. That by baptism the 
guilt of original sin is removed, and the Holy Ghost is given, 
whose effects remain like a seed in the soul, to be actualized 
by the free-will of the subject, or neglected and hence rendered 
abortive. Every infant is regenerated when baptized. If he 
dies in infancy the seed is actualized in paradise. If he lives 
to adult age, its result depends upon his use of it (Blunt's 
" Diet, of Theology," Art. Baptism). See above, Ch. XXIX., 
Ques. 4. 

They rest their doctrine on a large class of Scripture pas- 
sages like the following, " Christ gave himself for the church 
that he might sanctify and cleanse it by' the washing of water, 
by the word," Eph v. 26, "Arise and be baptized, and wash 
away thy sins." — Acts xxii. 16. Also John hi. 5; 1 Pet. hi. 21; 
Gal. iii. 27, etc. 

The Reformed explain these passages on the following prin- 
ciples. 1st. In every sacrament there are two things (a) an 
outward visible sign, and (b) an inward invisible grace thereby 
signified. There is between these a sacramental or symbolical 
relation that naturally gives rise to a usus loquendi, whereby the 
properties and effects of the grace are attributed to the sign. 
Yet it never follows that the two are inseparable, any more 
than it proves the absurdity that the two are identical. 

2d. The sacraments are badges of religious faith, and neces- 
sarily involve the profession of that faith. In all ordinary lan- 
guage, therefore, that faith is presumed to be present, and to be 
genuine, in which case the grace signified by the sacrament 
is, of course, always not only offered but conveyed (" S. Cat.," 
Ques. 91 and 92). 



628 BAPTISM. 

That baptism can not be the only or even the ordinary 
means of conveying the grace of regeneration (i. e., for initi- 
ating the soul into a state of grace) is plain. — 1st. Faith and 
repentance are the fruits of regeneration. But faith and re- 
pentance are required as conditions prerequisite to baptism. — 
Acts ii. 38; viii. 37; x. 47, and xi. 17. 

2d. This doctrine is identical with that of the Pharisees, 
which Christ and his apostles constantly rebuked. — Matt, xxiii. 
23-26. " For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any 
thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by love — but 
a new creature." — Gal. v. 6, and vi. 15 ; Rom. ii. 25-29. Faith 
alone is said to save, the absence of faith alone to damn. — Acts 
xvi. 31, and Mark xvi. 16. 

3d. The entire spirit and method of the gospel is ethical not 
magical. The great instrument of the Holy Ghost is the truth, 
and all that is ever said of the efficacy of the sacraments is 
said of the efficacy of the truth. They are means of grace 
therefore in common with the word and as they contain and 
seal it (1 Pet. i. 23, and John xvii. 17, 19). Our Saviour says 
" by their fruits ye shall know them''' — (Matt. vii. 20). 

4th. This doctrine is disproved by experience. Vast mul- 
titudes of the baptized of all ages and nations bring forth none 
of the fruits of regeneration. Multitudes who were never bap- 
tized have produced these fruits. The ages and communities 
in which this doctrine has been most strictly held have been 
conspicuous for spiritual barrenness. 

5th. The great evil of the system of which the doctrine of 
baptismal regeneration is a part, is that it tends to make re- 
ligion a matter of external and magical forms, and hence to 
promote rationalistic skepticism among the intelligent, and 
superstition among the ignorant and morbid, and to dissociate 
among all classes religion and morality. 

The Necessity of Baptism. 

40. What is the Bomish doctrine as to the necessity of baptism ? 

That it is by the appointment of God the one means, sine 
qua non, of justification (regeneration, etc.) both for infants and 
adults. In the case of adults they except only the case of those 
who have formed a sincere purpose of being baptized, which 
has been providentially hindered. In the case of infants there 
is no exception. 

41. What is the Lutheran view ? 

Their standards state the necessity of the sacraments with- 
out apparent qualification (See "Aug. Conf.," Art. 9, and " Apol. 



THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. 629 

Aug. Conf," p. 156, quoted under last chapter). But Dr. Krauth 
has shown from the writings of Luther and their standard the- 
ologians, that their actual view was that (1) baptism is not 
essential (as e. g., Christ's atonement is), but that (2) it is neces- 
sary, as the ordained ordinary means of conferring grace, yet 

(3) not unconditionally, because the "necessity" is limited (a) by 
the possibility of having it, so that not the deprivation of bap- 
tism, but the contempt of it condemns a man, and (b) by the 
fact that all the blessings of baptism are conditioned on faith. 

(4) Baptism is not always followed by regeneration, and regen- 
eration is not always preceded by baptism, and men may be 
saved though un baptized. (5) That within the church all in- 
fants are saved although unbaptized. (6) As to infants of 
heathen, the point undecided, because unrevealed, but hopeful 
views entertained. — Krauth's " Conserv. Reform.," pp. 557-564. 

42. What is the Reformed doctrine? 

That it is "necessary" because commanded, and universally 
obligatory, because it is a divinely ordained and most precious 
means of grace, which it would be impious knowingly and 
willingly to neglect. And because it is the appointed and com- 
monly recognized badge whereby our allegiance to Christ is 
openly acknowledged. Under the circumstances, intelligent 
neglect of the sacraments looks very like treason. 

But baptism does not ordinarily confer grace in the first 
instance, but presupposes it, and the grace it symbolizes and 
seals is often realized both before and without their use. — 
"Conf. Faith," Ch. xxviii., " Cal. Instit.," Bk. IV., ch. xvi., § 26. 

The Authoritative Creed Statements. 

komish doctrine. 

"Cat. Cone. Trident,," Pt. 2, Ch. 2, Ques. 5. — "It follows that baptism 
may be accurately and appositely defined to be the sacrament of regen- 
eration by water in the word. For by nature we are born from Adam 
children of wrath, but by baptism we are regenerated in Christ children 
of mercy." 

lb., Pt. 2, Ch. 2, Ques. 33. — "For as no other means of salvation 
remains for infant children except baptism, it is easy to comprehend 
the enormity of the guilt under which they lay themselves, who suffer 
them to be deprived of the grace of the sacrament longer than necessity 
requires." 

Bellarmin, "Bapt.," 1, 4. — "The church has always believed that in- 
fants perish if they depart this life without baptism. For although little 
children fail of baptism without any fault of their own, yet they do not 
perish without their own fault, since they have original sin." 

Lutheran Doctrine. — See quotations under last chapter. 

Quenstedt, iv., 147. — "By baptism and in baptism the Holy Ghost 
excites in infants a true, saving, life-giving, and actual faith, whence 
also baptized infants truly believe." 



630 BAPTISM. 

"Art. Smalcald" pt. 3, art. 5, "De Baptismo." — " Baptism is nothing 
else than the word of God with dipping in water, according to his insti- 
tution and command. . . . The word is added to the element and 
it becomes a sacrament." 

"Cat. Minor " iv., Ques. 3. — "Baptism effects remission of sins, liber- 
ates from death and the devil, and gives eternal blessedness to all and 
each who believe this which the word and divine promises hold forth. " 

Reformed Doctrine. 

"Cat. Genev." p. 522. — " The signification of baptism has two parts, 

for therein is represented remission of sins Do yon attribute 

nothing else to the water, than that it is only a figure of washing ? I 
think it is such a figure, that at the same time a truth is joined with it. 
For God does not disappoint us in promising to us his gifts. Hence it 
is certain that pardon of sins and newness of life are offered and received 
by us in baptism." 

Calvin's "Instit." B. iv., Ch. 16, $26. — " I would not be understood 
as insinuating that baptism may be contemned with impunity. So far 
from excusing this contempt, I hold that it violates the covenant of the 
Lord. The passage (John v. 24) only serves to show that we must not 
deem baptism so necessary as to supjDOse that every one who has lost the 
opportunity of obtaining it has forthwith perished." 

"Thirty -nine Art. of Ch. of England '," Art. 27. — "Baptism is not only 
a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are 
discerned from others that are not christened, but it is also a sign of re- 
generation or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive 
baptism rightly are grafted into the church : the promises of the forgive- 
ness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, 
are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by 
virtue of prayer unto God." 

" The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the 
church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." 

"Conf. Faith;' Ch. 28; " L. Cat.," Q. 165-167; " S. Cat," Q. 94, 95. 

\ 1. — "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by 
Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized 
into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the 
covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remis- 
sion of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to 
walk in newness of life." 

| 5. — "Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, 
yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no 
person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are bap- 
tized are undoubtedly regenerated." 

I 6. — "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time 
wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this 
ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited 
and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as 
that grace belongeth unto, according to the council of God's own will, 
in his appointed time." 

Socinian Doctrine. — Socinus believed baptism to have been practiced 
by the apostles after the death of Christ, and to have been applicable 
only to converts from without the church. Socinians generally held 
baptism to be only a badge of public profession of adherence to Christ, 
and maintained that immersion is the only proper mode, and adults the 
only proper subjects. — "Racovian Cat." Section 5, Ch. 3. 



CHAPTER XLIII. 

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

1. In what passages of the New Testament is the institution of 
the Lords Supper recorded ? 

Matt. xxvi. 26-28; Mark xiv. 22-24; Luke xxii. 17-20; 1 
Cor. x. 16, 17 ; and xi. 23-30. 

2. Prove that its observance is a perpetual obligation. 

1st. From the words of institution, "Do this in remembrance 
of me," and again "this do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance 
of me." 2d. Paul's word. — 1 Cor. xi. 26. " For as often as ye 
eat this bread and drink this cup ye do show the Lord's death 
till he come." 3d. The apostolic example (Acts ii. 42 and 46; 
xx. 7, etc). 4th. The frequent reference to it as of perpetual 
obligation in the apostolical writings (1 Cor. x. 16-21, etc). 
5th. The practice of the entire Christian church in all its 
branches from the first. 

3. What are the various phrases used' in Scripture to designate 
the Lords Supper, and their import ? 

1st. "Lord's Supper." — 1 Cor. xi. 20. The Greek word 
Ssirtvov, translated supper, designated the dinner, or principal 
meal of the Jews, taken towards or in the evening. Hence 
this sacrament received this name because it was instituted at 
that meal. It was called the "Lord's," because it was instituted 
by him, to commemorate his death, and signify and seal his 
grace. 

2d. " Cup of blessing." — 1 Cor. x. 16. The cup was blessed 
by Christ, and the blessing of God is now invoked upon it by 
the officiating minister. — Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. 

3d. " Lord's Table."— 1 Cor. x. 21. Table here stands by a 
usual figure for the provisions spread upon it. It is the table 
at which the Lord invites his guests, and at which he presides. 

4th. " Communion." — 1 Cor. x. 16. In partaking of this 
sacrament, the fellowship of the believer with Christ is estab- 



632 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

lished and exercised in a mutual giving and receiving, and 
consequently also the fellowship of believers with one another, 
through Christ. 

5th. " Breaking of bread." — Acts ii. 42. Here the symboli- 
cal action of the officiating minister is put for the whole 
service. 

4. By ivhat other terms was it designated in the early church ? 

1st. " Eucharist," from evxapidrsc*), to give thanlzs. See Matt, 
xxvi. 27. This beautifully designates it as a thanksgiving ser- 
vice. It is both the cup of thanksgiving, whereby we celebrate 
the grace of God and pledge our gratitude to him, and the cup 
of blessing, or the consecrated cup. 

2d. "Svvabs," a coming together, because the sacrament was 
administered in the public congregation. 

3d. "Aeirovpyia" a sacred ministration, applied to the sacra- 
ment by way of eminence. From this word is derived the 
English word liturgy. 

4th. " &vdia,» sacrifice offering. "This term was not applied 
to the sacrament in the proper sense of a propitiatory sacrifice. 
But (1) because it was accompanied with a collection and obla- 
tion of alms; (2) because it commemorated the true sacrifice 
of Christ on the cross; (3) because it was truly a eucharistical 
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, Heb. xiii. 15; (4) because, 
in the style of the ancients, every religious action, whereby we 
consecrate any thing to God for his glory and our salvation, is 
called a sacrifice." 

5th. 'Aydcnrj. The Agapee, or love feasts, were meals at 
which all the communicants assembled, and in connection with 
which they received the consecrated elements. Hence the 
name of the feast was given to the sacrament itself. 

6th. Mv6zy)piov i a mystery, or a symbolical revelation of 
truth, designed for the special benefit of initiated Christians. 
This was applied to both sacraments. In the Scriptures it is 
applied to all the doctrines of revelation. — Matt. xiii. 11; 
Col. i. 26. 

7th. Missa, mass. The principal designation used by the 
Latin church. The most probable derivation of this term is 
from the ancient formula of dismission. When the sacred rites 
were finished the deacons called out, " Ite, missa est," go, it is 
discharged. — Turretin, L. 19, Q. 21. 

5. How is this sacrament defined, and what are the essential 
points included in the definition ? 

See "L. Cat," Q. 168; "S. Cat.," Q. 96. 



KINDS OF BREAD AND WINE TO BE USED. 633 

The essential points of this definition are, 1st, the elements, 
bread and wine, given and received according to the appoint- 
ment of Jesus Christ. 2d. The design of the recipient of doing 
this in obedience to Christ's appointment, in remembrance of 
him, to show forth his death till he come. 3d. The promised 
presence of Christ in the sacrament by his Spirit, " so that the 
worthy receivers are not after a corporeal and carnal manner, 
but by faith, made partakers of Christ's body and blood, with 
all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in 
grace." 

6. What hind of bread is to be used in the sacrament, and what 
is the usage of the different churches on this point ? 

Bread of some kind is essential, 1st, from the command of 
Christ; 2d, from the significancy of the symbol; since bread, 
as the principal natural nourishment of our bodies, represents 
his flesh, which, as living bread, he gave for the life of the 
world. — John vi. 51. But the kind of bread, whether leavened 
or unleavened, is not specified in the command, nor is it ren- 
dered essential by the nature of the service. 

Christ used unleavened bread because it was present at the 
Passover. The early Christians celebrated the Communion at 
a common meal, with the bread of common life, which was 
leavened. The Romish Church has Used unleavened bread 
ever since the eighth century, and commands the use of the 
same as the only proper kind, but does not make it essential 
(" Cat. Cone. Trident," Pt. 2, ch. iv., §§ 13 and 14). The Greek 
Church insists upon the use of leavened bread. The Lutheran 
Church uses unleavened bread. The Reformed Church, includ- 
ing the Church of England, regards the use of leavened bread, 
as the food of common life, to be most proper, since bread in 
the Supper is the symbol of spiritual nourishment. The use of 
sweet cake, practiced in some of our churches, is provincial 
and arbitrary, and is without any support in Scripture, tradi- 
tion, or good taste. 

7, What is the meaning of the term oiros, wine, in the New 
Testament, and hoiv does it appear that ivine and no other liquid 
must be used in the Lord's Siqiper ? 

It is evident from the usage of this word in the New Testa- 
ment that it was designed by the sacred writers to designate 
the fermented juice of the grape. — Matt. ix. 17; John ii. 3-10; 
Rom. xiv. 21; Eph. v. 18; 1 Tim. iii. 8; v. 23; Titus ii. 3. 

This is established by the unanimous testimony of all com- 
petent scholars and missionary residents in the East, — See 
Dr. Lindsay W. Alexander's article in Kitto's "Cyclopaedia"; 



634 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

and Dr. Wm. L. Beran's art. on "Wine" in "Smith's Bible 
Diet."; and Dr. Ph. Schaff in Lange's "Com. on John," eh. ii. 
1-11, note p. Ill; and Kev. Dr. T. Laurie, missionary, in the 
"Bibliotheca Sacra," Jan., 1869; and Dr. Justin Perkins' "Res- 
idence of Eight Years in Persia," p. 236; and Dr. Eli Smith in 
the "Bib. Sacra," 1846, pp. 385, etc.; and Kev. J. H. Shedd 
(missionary), in "Interior," of July 20, 1871. 

The Romish Church contends, on the authority of tradition, 
that water should be mingled with the wine (" Cat. Cone. Tri- 
dent., Pt. II., Ch. iv., Ques. 16 and 17). But this has not been 
commanded, nor is it involved in any way in the symbolical 
significancy of the rite. That wine and no other liquid is to be 
used is clear from the record of the institution, Matt. xxvi. 26-29, 
and from the usage of the apostles. 

8. How does it appear that breaking the bread is an important 
part of the service ? 

1st. The example of Christ in the act of institution, which 
is particularly noticed in each inspired record of the matter. 
Matt. xxvi. 26; Mark xiv. 22; Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 24. 

2d. It is prominently set forth in the reference made by 
the apostles to the sacrament in the epistles. — 1 Cor. x. 16. 
The entire service is designated from this one action. 

3d. It pertains to the symbolical significancy of the sacra- 
ment. (1.) It represents the breaking of Christ's body for us. 
1 Cor. xi. 24. (2.) It represents the communion of believers, 
being many in one body. — 1 Cor. x. 17. This is denied by the 
Lutheran Church, which holds that the "breaking" is only a 
preparation for distribution (see Krauth's " Conservative Ref- 
ormation," pp. 719-722). 

9. What is the proper interpretation of 1 Cor. x. 16, and in 
tuhat sense are the elements to be blessed or consecrated ? 

The phrase to bless is used in Scripture only in three senses, 
1st. To bless God, i. <?., to declare his praises, and to utter our 
gratitude to him. 2d. To confer blessing actually, as God does 
upon his creatures. 3d. To invoke the blessing of God upon 
any person or thing. 

The " cup of blessing which we bless " is the consecrated 
cup upon which the minister has invoked the divine blessing. 
As the blessing of God is invoked upon food, and it is thus 
consecrated unto the end of its natural use, 1 Tim. iv. 5, so the 
elements are set apart as sacramental signs of an invisible spir- 
itual grace, to the end of showing forth Christ's death, and of 
ministering grace to the believing recipient, by the invocation 



DISTRIBUTION OF THE ELEMENTS ESSENTIAL. 635 

by the minister of God's blessing in the promised presence of 
Christ through his Spirit. 

The Komish Church teaches that when the priest pro- 
nounces the words of consecration with the due intention, 
he really effects the transubstantiation of the bread and wine 
into the body and blood of Christ. The form to be used in the 
consecration of the bread is, "This is my body." The form to 
be used in consecrating the wine is, " For this is the chalice of 
my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of 
faith, which shall be shed for you and for many for the remis- 
sion of sins" ("Cat. Cone. Trident," Pt. II., Ch. iv., Ques. 19-26). 

10. Show that tlw distribution of tJie elements to the people and 
their reception by them is an essential part of this sacrament ? 

Since the Komish Church has perfectly developed the doc- 
trines of transubstantiation, and of the sacrifice of the mass, 
they have logically come to regard the essential design of the 
ordinance to be effected when the act of consecration has been 
performed, and hence the distribution of the elements to the 
people is considered non-essential. Hence they preserve the 
bread as the veritable body of the Lord shut up in the pyx, 
carry it about in processions and worship it. Hence they also 
maintain the right of the priest in the mass to communicate 
without the people, and to carry the wafer to the sick who are 
absent from the place of communion. — " Cone. Trident," Sess. 
13, Ch. 6, and cans. 4-7, and Sess. 22, can. 8. 

Protestants, on the contrary, hold that it is of the essence of 
this holy ordinance that it is an action, beginning and ending 
in the appointed use of the elements. u Take eat" said Christ. 
" This do in remembrance of me." It is a " breaking of bread," 
an "eating and drinking" in remembrance of Christ, it is a 
"communion." Protestants all hold, consequently, that the 
distribution and reception of the elements are essential parts 
of the service, and that when these are accomplished the sac- 
rament ends. The Lutherans hold that the presence of the 
flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament is confined to the 
time of the sacramental use of the elements, that is to the time 
of their distribution and reception, and that what remains 
afterwards is common bread and wine. — " Form. Concord.," 
Pt. 2, Ch. 7, 82, and 108; " Conf. Faith," Ch. 29, § 4. 

The Eeformed Church holds that the elements should be 
put into the hands of the communicant, and not as Catholics, 
into his mouth. Christ said, " take eat," and the act is sym- 
bolical of personal self-appropriation. 

Since this sacrament is a "communion" (1 Cor. x. 16, 17) 
of the members with one another and with Christ together, the 



636 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

rite is abused when the elements are sent to persons absent 
from the company among whom it is celebrated, and all pri- 
vate communion of ministers or laymen is absurd. In case of 
need all Reformed Churches allow the pastor and elders to go, 
with as many Christian friends as the case admits of, and hold 
a communion in the chamber of sick believers, who otherwise 
would be unable to attend (Gen. Assem. 0. S., 1863, " Moore's 
Digest.," p. 668). 

11. What should be the nature of the exercises during the distri- 
bution of the elements ? 

"The Sacraments are seals of the Covenant of Grace" formed 
between Christ and his people, and in the Lord's Supper " the 
worthy receivers really and truly receive and apply unto them- 
selves Christ crucified," each believer being made "a priest unto 
God" (1 Pet. ii. 5; Rev. i. 6), "having liberty to enter into the 
holiest by the blood of Jesus " (Heb. x. 19). From all this it 
necessarily follows that in this sacrament the communicants are 
to act immediately in their covenanting with the Lord. 

The minister ought never, therefore, to throw the commu- 
nicants into a passive attitude as the recipients of instructions 
or exhortations. All such didactic and hortatory exercises 
being assigned to the "preparatory" services, and to the ser- 
mon before communion, the minister should confine himself to 
leading the communicants in the act of communion in exercises of 
direct worship, such as suitable prayers and hymns. And all 
the prayers and hymns associated with this holy ordinance 
should be specifically appropriate to it, and not merely of a 
general religious character. 

The Relation of the Sign and the Grace Signified. 

12. What is the Romish doctrine on this subject? And how is it 
expressed by the term Transubstantiation? 

The early fathers spoke of the presence of Christ in the 
Supper in indefinite language, and with a general tendency to 
exaggeration. Their metaphorical language tended to a con- 
fusion between the symbols of religious service and the spir- 
itual ideas represented. As the ministry came to be regarded 
as a priesthood, and the only channels of grace to the people, 
the sacraments were more and more exalted into the necessary 
instruments through which they acted. With the conception 
of a real priesthood necessarily emerged the need of a real sac- 
rifice; and for the reality of the sacrifice the real presence of 
a divine incarnate victim also was necessarily provided. 



ROMISH DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 637 

The doctrine in its present form was first brought out ex- 
plicitly by Paschasius Radbert, abbot of Corbet (a. d. 831). It 
was opposed by Ratramnus, but gradually gained ground. The 
term transubstantiatio, conversion of substance, was used to define 
it in the first instance by Hildebert of Tours (|1134). It was 
first decreed as an article of faith, at the instance of Innocent 
III., by the fourth " Lateran Council," a. d. 1215. 

Their doctrine is that when the words of consecration are 
pronounced by the priest — 1st. The whole substance of the 
bread is changed into the very body of Christ which was born 
of the Virgin, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father 
in heaven, and the whole substance of the wine is changed into 
the blood of Christ. 2d. That as in his theanthropic person 
the soul is inseparable from the body, and the divinity from 
the soul, so in the sacrament the soul and body of the Re- 
deemer is present with his flesh and blood. 3d. That only the 
species, or sensible qualities of the bread and wine remain, 
accidentia sine subjecto, and that the substance of the flesh and 
blood is present without their accidents. 4th. This conversion 
of substance is permanent, so that the flesh and blood remain 
permanently and are to be preserved and adored as such. They 
rest their doctrine on Scripture (Hie est corpus meum), tradition, 
and the authority of councils. 

13. On what grounds does tlie Romish Church withhold the use 
of the cup from all except the officiating priest? and what is their 
doctrine of ' concomitance ' ? 

The Early Church for ages, and the Greek and all Protestant 
Churches to the present time, follow the example of Christ and 
his apostles in distributing among all communicants both the 
bread and the wine, u sub utraque forma." The Romish Church 
however, for fear that some portion of the Lord's person might 
be unintentionally desecrated, has restricted the cup to the offi- 
ciating minister alone. The only exception allowed is when 
the cardinals receive the cup from the pope officiating on Holy 
Thursday. The Hussite War had for its principal object the 
gaining for the people the privilege of communicating in both 
lands. To defend their custom theologians advanced the doc- 
trine that the whole Christ is present in each of the elements, 
to which Thomas Aquinas first gave the name concomitantia. 
The body includes the nerves, sinews, and all else that is nec- 
essary to a complete body; and as the blood is inseparable 
from the flesh, and the soul from the body, and the divinity 
from the soul, it follows that the entire person of the Redeemer 
is present in each particle of both elements, separation having 
been made. He, therefore, who receives any fraction of the 



638 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

bread receives blood as well as flesh, because he receives the 
whole Christ. 

14. Present the arguments proving the Romish doctrine of the 
relation of the sign to tlve thing signified to be unscriptural as well 
as irrational. 

1st. The sole Scriptural argument of the Komanists is derived 
from the words of institution, "This is my body" (Matt. xxvi. 
26). Protestants answer. This phrase in this place must mean, 
"this bread represents, or symbolizes, my body." This is evi- 
dent — (1.) Because such language in Scripture must often be 
so interpreted, e. g., Gen. xli. 26, 27 — "The seven good kine 
are seven years: and the seven good ears are seven years." 
Dan. vii. 24 — "And the ten horns are ten kings." Ex. xii. 11; 
Ezek. xxxvii. 11 — "These bones are the whole house of Israel." 
Matt. xiii. 19, 37; Rev. i. 20 — "The seven stars are the angels 
of the seven churches, and the seven candlesticks are the seven 
churches." (2.) In this case any other interpretation is ren- 
dered impossible by the fact that Christ was sitting present 
in the body when he spoke the words, and that he also eat the 
bread. (3.) Also by what Christ says of the cup. Matt., "This 
cup is my blood." Luke, "This cup is the New Testament in 
my blood." Paul (1 Cor. x. 16) says the cup is the noivcovia of 
the blood, and the bread is the Howaovia of the body of Christ. 

2d. Paul calls one of the elements bread, as well after as 
before its consecration. — 1 Cor. x. 16; xi. 26-28. 

3d. This doctrine is inconsistent with their own definition 
of a sacrament. They agree with Protestants and with the 
fathers in distinguishing, in every sacrament, two things, viz., 
the sign and the thing signified. See above, Chap. XLI., Ques- 
tion 2. But the doctrine of transubstantiation confounds these 
together. 

4th. The senses, when exercised in their proper sphere, are 
as much a revelation from God as any other. No miracle re- 
corded in the Bible contradicted the senses, but, on the con- 
trary, the reality of the miracle was established by the testi- 
mony of the senses. See the transubstantiation of water into 
wine. — John ii. 1-10, and Luke xxiv. 36-43. But this doctrine 
flatly contradicts our senses, since we see, smell, taste, and 
touch the bread and wine as well after their consecration as 
before. 

5th. Reason also, in its proper sphere, is a divine revelation, 
and though it may be transcended, never can be contradicted 
by any other revelation, supernatural or otherwise. See above, 
Chap. III., Question 14. But this doctrine contradicts the prin- 
ciples of reason (1) with respect to the nature of Christ's body, 



LUTHERAN VIEW OF THE LORD'S PRESENCE. 639 

by supposing that, although it is material, it may be, without 
division, wholly present in heaven, and at many different places 
on earth at the same time. (2.) In maintaining that the body 
and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament, yet without 
any of their sensible qualities, and that all the sensible qualities 
of the bread and wine are present, while the bodies to which 
they belong are absent. But qualities have no existence apart 
from the substances to which they belong. 

6th. This doctrine is an inseparable part of a system of 
priestcraft entirely anti-Christian, including the worship of the 
host, the sacrifice of the mass, and hence the entire substitu- 
tion of the priest and his work in the place of Christ and his 
work. It also blasphemously subjects the awful divinity of 
our Saviour to the control of his sinful creatures, who at their 
own will call him down from heaven, and withhold or commu- 
nicate him to the people. 

15. State the Lutheran view as to the nature of Christ's pres- 
ence in the Eucharist. 

The Lutherans hold — 1st. The communicatio idiomatum, or 
that the personal union of the divine and human natures 
involve the sharing of the humanity at least with the omnipres- 
ence of the divinity. The entire person of the incarnate God, 
body, soul, and divinity are everywhere. 2d. That the lan- 
guage of our Lord in the institution, "This (bread) is my 
body," is to be understood literally. 

They, therefore, hold — 1st. That the entire person, body 
and blood of Christ are really and corporeally present in, with, 
and under the sensible elements. 2d. . That they are received 
by the mouth. 3d. That they are received by the unbeliever 
as well as by the believer. But the unbeliever receives them 
to his own condemnation. 

On the other hand they deny — 1st. Transubstantiation ; hold- 
ing that the bread and wine remain (as to their substance) what 
they appear. 2d. That the presence of Christ in the sacrament 
is effected by the officiating minister. 3d. That the presence 
of Christ in the elements is permanent; being sacramental, it 
ceases when the sacrament is over. 4th. That the bread and 
wine only represent Christ's body and blood. 5th. That the 
presence of the true body and blood is "spiritual," in the 
sense of being mediated either (a) through the Holy Ghost, or 
(b) through the faith of the recipient. 

16. State the doctrine of the Reformed Church. 

Luther's activity as a reformer extended from 1517 to 1546; 
Melanchthon's from 1521 to 1560; Zwingle's from his appear- 



640 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

ance at Zurich, 1518, to his death, 1531 ; Calvin's from 1536 to 
1564. The Marburg Colloquy was held October, 1529; the 
Augsburg Confession published June, 1530; and the first edi- 
tion of " Calvin's Institutes " was published at Basle, 1536, and 
the finished work was published by him in Geneva, 1559. 

I. Zwingle held that the bread and wine are mere memo- 
rials of the body of Christ absent in heaven. His view at first 
prevailed among the Reformed churches, and was embodied in 
Zwingle's "Fidei Ratio," sent to the diet at Augsburg, 1530; 
the "Confessio Tetrapolitana," by Martin Bucer, 1530; the 
"First Basle Confession," by Oswald Myconius, 1532; and the 
"First Helvetic Confession," by Bullinger, Myconius, etc., 1536. 

II. Calvin occupied middle ground between the Zwinglians 
and Lutherans. He held — (1.) In common with Zwingle and 
all the Reformed that the words "This is my body," means "this 
bread represents my body." (2.) That God in this sacrament 
offers to all, and gives to all believing recipients, through the 
eating and drinking the bread and wine, all the sacrificial ben- 
efits of Christ's redemption. (3.) He also taught that besides 
this the very body and blood of Christ, though absent in heaven, 
communicate a life-giving influence to the believer in the act 
of receiving the elements. But that this influence though real 
and vital is (a) mystical not physical, (6) mediated through the 
Holy Ghost, (c) conditioned upon the act of faith by which the 
communicant receives them. This view is set forth chiefly in 
his " Institutes," Bk. 4, Ch. 17, and in the " Gallic Confession," 
Art. 36, prepared by a Synod in Paris, 1559; in the "Scottish 
Confession," Art. 21, by John Knox, 1560; and the "Belgic 
Confession," Art. 35, *by Von Bres, 1561. 

III. After all hope of reconciling the Lutherans with the 
Reformed branches of the church on this subject was exhausted, 
Calvin drew up the Consensus Tigurinus in 1549 for the purpose 
of uniting the Zurich-Zwinglian with the Genevan-Calvinistic 
party in one doctrine of the Eucharist. It was accepted by 
both parties, and the doctrine it presents has ever since been 
received as the consensus of the Reformed churches. It pre- 
vails in the "Second Helvetic Confession," by Bullinger, 1564; 
the " Heidelberg Catechism," by Ursinus, a student of Me- 
lanchthon, 1562; the "Thirty-nine Articles of the Church 
of England," 1562; and the "Westminster Confession of 
Faith," 1648. 

These all agree — 1st. As to the "presence" of the flesh and 
blood of Christ. (1.) His human nature is in heaven only. 
(2.) His Person as God-man is omnipresent everywhere and 
always, our communion is with his entire person rather than 
with his flesh and blood (see above, Ch. XIII., Ques. 13 and 16) 



EFFICACY OF THIS SACRAMENT. 641 

(3.) The presence of his flesh and blood in the sacrament is 
neither physical nor local, but only through the Holy Spirit, 
affecting the soul graciously. 2d. As to that which the believer 
feeds upon, they agreed that it was not the " substance " but 
the virtue or efficacy of his body and blood, i. e., their sacrificial 
virtue, as broken and shed for sin. 3d. As to the " feeding " 
of believers upon this "body and blood," they agreed — (1.) It 
was not with the mouth in any manner. (2.) It was by the 
soul alone. (3.) It was by faith, the mouth or hand of the soul. 
(4.) By or through the power of the Holy Ghost. (5.) It is not 
confined to the Lord's Supper. It takes place whenever faith 
in him is exercised. — "Bib. Ref.," April, 1848. 

The Efficacy of this Sacrament. 

17. What is the Romish doctrine as to the efficacy of the Eucha- 
rist, and in what sense and on ivhat ground do they hold that it is 
also a sacrifice ? 

They distinguish between the eucharist as a sacrament, and 
as a sacrifice. As a sacrament its effect is that ex opere operato 
the receiver who does not present an obstacle, is nourished 
spiritually, sanctified and replenished with merit by the actual 
substance of the Redeemer eaten or drunk. 

On the other hand — " The sacrifice of the mass is an exter- 
nal oblation of the body and blood of Christ offered to God in 
recognition of his supreme Lordship, under the appearance of 
bread and wine visibly exhibited by a legitimate minister, with 
the addition of certain prayers and ceremonies prescribed by 
the church for the greater worship of God and edification of 
the people." — Dens, Vol. v., p. 358. 

With respect to its end it is to be distinguished into, 
1st, Latreuticnm, or an act of supreme worship offered to God. 
2d. Eucharisticum, thanksgiving. 3d. Propitiatorium, atoning 
for sin, and propitiating God by the offering up of the body 
and blood of Christ again. 4th. Imperatorium, since through 
it we attain to many spiritual and temporal blessings. — Dens, 
Vol. v., p. 368. 

The difference between the eucharist as a sacrament and a 
sacrifice is very great, and is twofold ; as a sacrament it is per- 
fected by consecration, as a sacrifice all its efficacy consists in 
its oblation. As a sacrament it is to the worthy receiver a 
source of merit, as a sacrifice it is not only a source of merit, 
but also of satisfaction, expiating the sins of the living and the 
dead.— "Cat. Rom.," Pt. II., Chap, iv, Q. 55; "Council Trent," 
Sess. 22. 



642 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

They found this doctrine upon the authority of the church, 
and absurdly appeal to Mai. i. 11, as a prophecy of this perpet- 
ually recurrent sacrifice, and to the declaration, Heb. vii. 17, 
that Christ is "a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedec," 
who, say they, discharged his priestly functions in offering 
bread and wine to Abraham. — Gen. xiv. 18. 

18. How may this doctrine be refuted ? 

1st. It has no foundation whatever in Scripture. Their 
appeal to the prophecy in Malachi, and to the typical relation 
of Melchizedec to Christ, is self-evidently absurd. 

2d. It rests wholly upon the fiction of transubstantiation, 
which was disproved above, Question 14. 

3d. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was perfect, and 
from its essential nature excludes all others. — Heb. ix. 25-28 ; 
x. 10-14 and 18, 26, 27. 

4th. It is inconsistent with the words of institution pro- 
nounced by Christ. — Luke xxii. 19, and 1 Cor. xi. 24-26. The 
sacrament commemorates the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, 
and consequently can not be a new propitiatory sacrifice itself. 
For the same reason the essence of a sacrament is different 
from that of a sacrifice. The two can not coexist in the same 
ordinance. 

5th. It belonged to the very essence of all propitiatory sac- 
rifices, as well to the typical sacrifices of the Old Testament, as 
to the all-perfect one of Christ, that life should be taken, that 
blood should be shed, since it consisted in vicariously suffering 
the penalty of the law. — Heb. ix. 22. But the Papists them- 
selves call the mass a bloodless sacrifice, and it is wholly with- 
out pain or death. 

6th. A sacrifice implies a priest to present it, but the Chris- 
tian ministry is not a priesthood. — See above, Chap. XXIV., 
Question 21. 

19. What is the Lutlieran view as to the efficacy of the sac- 
rament ? 

The Lutheran view on this point is that the efficacy of the 
sacrament resides not in the signs, but in the word of God con- 
nected with them, and that it is operative only when there is 
true faith in the receiver. This effect is identical with that of 
the word, and through faith includes the benefits of vital com- 
munion with Christ and all the fruits thereof. It, however, 
lays stress upon the virtue of the literal body and blood of 
Christ as present in, with, and under, the bread and wine. 
This body and blood, being physically received equally by 



EFFICACY OF THIS SACRAMENT. 643 

the believer and unbeliever, but being of gracious avail only 
in the case of the believer. —Luther's "Small Cat.," Part V., 
Krauth's " Conserv. Reform.,' pp. 825-829. 

20. What is the so-called Zwinglian and Remonstrant and So- 
cinian view as to the efficacy of the Eucharist ? 

Zwingle died prematurely. He undoubtedly took too low 
a view of the sacraments. If he had lived he would, doubtless, 
have accompanied his disciples in their union with Calvin in 
the adoption of the Consensus Tigurinus. The doctrine ever 
since known by his name, and really held by the Socinians and 
Remonstrants, differs from the Reformed — 1st. In making the 
elements mere signs; and in denying that Christ is in any 
special sense present in the eucharist. 2d. In denying that 
they are means of grace, and holding that they are bare acts 
of commemoration and badges of profession. 

21. What is the view of the Reformed churches upon this 
subject ? 

They rejected the Romish view which regards the efficacy of 
the sacrament as inhering in it physically as its intrinsic prop- 
erty, as heat inheres in fire. They rejected also the Lutheran 
view as far as it attributes to the sacrament an inherent super- 
natural power, due indeed not to the signs, but to the word 
of God which accompanies them, but which, nevertheless, is 
always operative, provided there be faith in the receiver. And, 
thirdly, they rejected the doctrine of the Socinians and others, 
that the sacrament is a mere badge of profession, or an empty 
sign of Christ and his benefits. They declared it to be an effica- 
cious means of grace; but its efficacy, as such, is referred neither 
to any virtue in it, nor in him that administers it, but solely 
to the attending operation of the Holy Ghost (virtus Spiritus 
Sancti extrinsecus accedens), precisely as in the case of the 
word. It has indeed the moral objective power of a signifi- 
cant emblem, and as a seal it really conveys to every believer 
the grace of which it is a sign, and it is set apart with especial 
solemnity as a meeting point between Christ and his people; 
but its power to convey grace depends entirely, as in the case 
of the word, on the co-operation of the Holy Ghost. Hence the 
power is in no way tied to the sacrament. It may be exerted 
without it. It does not always attend it, nor is it confined 
to the time, place, or service. — "Bib. Ref," April, 1848; see 
"Gal. Conf," Arts. 36 and 37; " Helv.," ii., c. 21; "Scotch 
Conf," Art. 21; 28th and 29th "Articles of Church of Eng- 
land"; also our own standards, "Conf. Faith," Chapter xxix., 
section 7. 



644 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

22. What do our standards teach as to the qualifications for 
admission to the Lords Supper ? 

1st. Only those who are truly regenerated by the Holy 
Ghost are qualified, and only those who profess faith in Christ 
and walk consistently are to be admitted. 

2d. Wicked and ignorant persons, and those who know 
themselves not to be regenerate, are not qualified, and ought 
not to be admitted by the church officers. — " Conf. Faith," Ch. 
xxix., section 8; " L. Cat," Question 173. 

3d. But since many who doubt as to their being in Christ 
are nevertheless genuine Christians, so if one thus doubting 
unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from 
iniquity, he ought to labor to have his doubts resolved, and, so 
doing, to come to the Lord's Supper, that he may be further 
strengthened. — " L. Cat.," Question 172. 

4th. " Children born within the pale of the visible church, 
and dedicated to God in baptism, when they come to years 
of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and 
steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord's 
body, they ought to be informed it is their duty and their 
privilege to come to the Lord's Supper." "The years of dis- 
cretion in young Christians can not be precisely fixed. This 
must be left to the prudence of the eldership." — "Direct, for 
Worship," Chap. ix. 

23. What is the practice which prevails in the different churches 
on this subject, and on what principles does such practice rest ? 

1st. The Eomanists make the condition of salvation to be 
union with and obedience to the church, and, consequently, 
admit all to the sacraments who express their desire to con- 
form and obey. "No one," however, "conscious of mortal sin, 
and having an opportunity of recurring to a confessor, however 
contrite he may deem himself, is to approach the holy eucha- 
rist, until he is purified by sacramental confession." — "Coun. 
Trent," sess. 13, canon 11. The Lutherans agree with them in 
admitting all who conform to the external requirements of the 
church. 

2d. High Church prelatists, and others who regard the sac- 
raments as in themselves effective means of grace, maintain 
that even those who, knowing themselves to be destitute of the 
fruits of the Spirit, nevertheless have speculative faith in the 
gospel, and are free from scandal, and desire to come, should 
be admitted. 

3d. The faith and practice of all the evangelical churches is 
that the communion is designed only for believers, and there- 



QUALIFICATIONS FOR COMMUNION. 645 

fore, that a credible profession of faith and obedience should be 
required of every applicant. (1.) The Baptist churches, denying 
altogether the right of infant church membership, receive all 
applicants for the communion as from the world, and therefore 
demand positive evidences of the new birth of all. (2.) All the 
Pedobaptist churches, maintaining that all children baptized in 
infancy are already members of the church, distinguish between 
the admission of the children of the church to the communion, 
and the admission de novo to the church of the unbaptized alien 
from the world. With regard to the former, the presumption 
is that they should come to the Lord's table when they arrive 
at "years of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear to 
be sober and steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to dis- 
cern the Lord's body." In the case of the unbaptized world- 
ling, the presumption is that they are aliens until they bring a 
credible profession of a change. 

24. How may it he proved that the Lords Supper is not designed 
for the unreneiued ? 

It can, of course, be designed only for those who are spirit- 
ually qualified to do in reality what every recipient of the sac- 
rament does in form and professedly. But this ordinance is 
essentially — 

1st. A profession of Christ. 

2d. A solemn covenant to accept Christ and his gospel, and 
to fulfil the conditions of discipleship. 

3d. An act of spiritual communion with Christ. 

The qualifications for acceptable communion, therefore, are 
such knowledge, and such a spiritual condition, as shall enable 
the recipient intelligently and honestly to discern in the em- 
blems the Lord's body as sacrificed for sin, to contract with 
him the gospel covenant, and to hold fellowship with him 
through the Spirit. 

25. What have the church and its officers a rigid to require of 
those whom they admit to the Lord's Supper ? 

"The officers of the church are the judges of the qualifica- 
tions of those to be admitted to sealing ordinances." "And 
those so admitted shall be examined as to their knowledge 
and piety." — "Direct, for AVorsh.," Chap. ix. As God has not 
endowed any of these officers with the power of reading the 
heart, it follows that the qualifications of which they are the 
judges are simply those of competent knowledge, purity of life, 
and credible profession of faith. [By "credible" is meant not 
that which convinces, but that which can be believed to be 
genuine.] It is their duty to examine the applicant as to 



646 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

his knowledge, to watch and inquire concerning his walk and 
conversation, to set before him faithfully the inward spiritual 
qualifications requisite for acceptable communion, and to hear 
his profession of that spiritual faith and purpose. The respon- 
sibility of the act then rests upon the individual professor, and 
not upon the session, who are never to be understood as passing 
judgment upon, or as indorsing the validity of his evidences. 

26. What is the difference between the Presbyterian and the 
Congregational churches upon this 'point? 

There exists a difference between the traditionary views 
and practice of these two bodies of Christians with respect to 
the ability, the right, and the duty of church officers, of form- 
ing and affirming a positive official judgment upon the in- 
ward spiritual character of applicants for church privileges. 
The Congregationalists understand by "credible profession" 
the positive evidence of a religious experience which satisfies 
the official judges of the gracious state of the applicant. The 
Presbyterians understand by that phrase only an intelligent 
profession of true spiritual faith in Christ, which is not contra- 
dicted by the life. 

Dr. Candlish, in the "Edinburgh Witness," June 8th, 1848, 
says, "The principle (of communion), as it is notorious that the 
Presbyterian church has always held it, does not constitute 
the pastor, elders, or congregation, judges of the actual con- 
version of the applicant; but, on the contrary, lays much re- 
sponsibility upon the applicant himself. The minister and kirk 
session must be satisfied as to his competent knowledge, cred- 
ible profession, and consistent walk. They must determine 
negatively that there is no reason for pronouncing him not 
to be a Christian, but they do not undertake the responsibility 
of positively judging of his conversion. This is the Presbyte- 
rian rule of discipline, be it right or wrong, differing materially 
from that of the Congregationalists. In practice there is room 
for much dealing with the conscience under either rule, and 
persons destitute of knowledge and of a credible profession are 
excluded." 

AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS OE CHURCH DoCTRTNE. 

Romish Doctrine. — Doctrine oe the Euchaeist both as a Sacra- 
ment and as a Sacrifice. 

"Cone. Trident." Sess. 13, can. 1. — "If any one demeth, that, in the 
sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, arid 
substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ ; but saith 
that he is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be 
anathema." 



AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS OF DOCTRINE. 647 

Can. 2. — "If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of 
the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly 
with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that 
wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread 
into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood — 
the species (accidents) of the bread and wine remaining — which conver- 
sion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let 
him be anathema. " 

Can. 3. — "If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of 
the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and 
under every part of each species, when separation has been made; let 
him be anathema." 

Can. 4. — "If any one saith, that, after the consecration has been 
completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the 
admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the 
use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that in 
the host, or consecrated particles, which are received or remain after 
communion, the true body remaineth not; let him be anathema." 

Can. 6. — "If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucha- 
rist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the 
worship, even external, of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be 
venerated with special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about 
in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom 
of holy church; or, is not to be exposed publicly to the people to be 
adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolaters; let him be anathema." 

Can. 7. — "If any one shall say that it is not lawful for the sacred 
Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that immediately after 
consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; 
or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honor to the sick; let him 
be anathema." 

Can. 8. — "If any one saith that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is 
eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be 
anathema." 

Can. 10. — "If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the celebrating 
priest to communicate by himself; let him be anathema." 

Sess. 21, Can. 1. — "If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or 
by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to 
receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist; let him 
be anathema." 

I Can. 2. — "If any one saith that the holy Catholic Church was not 
induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate under the species 
of bread only, laymen and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be 
anathema." 

Can. 3. — "If any one denieth that Christ whole and entire — the foun- 
tain and author of all graces — is received under the one species of bread; 
because that — as some falsely assert — he is not received according to the 
institution of Christ himself under both species; let him be anathema." 

Sess. 22, Can. 1. — "If any one saith, that in the mass, a true and 
proper sacrifice is not made to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else 
but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema." 

Can. 2. — "If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the com- 
memoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles 
priests; or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his 
own body and blood; let him be anathema." 

Can. 3. — "If any one saith that the sacrifice of the mass is only a 



648 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemora- 
tion of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory 
sacrifice; or, that it profits him only that receives; and that it ought not 
to be offered for the living and for the dead, for sins, pains, satisfactions, 
and other necessities; let him be anathema." 

Can. 8. — "If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone 
communicates sacramentally, are unlawful . . let him be anathema. " 

Chap. 2. — "Forasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated 
in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody 
manner, who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the 
cross . . . therefor, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, 
and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those 
who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it 
rightly offered agreeably to a tradition of the apostles. " 

Bellarmin, " Gontrov. de Euchar." v. 5. — "The sacrifice of the mass 
has not an efficacy ex opere operato after the manner of a sacrament. The 
sacrifice does not operate efficiently and immediately, nor is it properly 
the instrument of God for making just. It does not make just imme- 
diately as baptism and absolution do, but it impetrates the gift of peni- 
tence, through which a sinner is made willing to approach the sacrament, 
and by this be justified. . . The sacrifice of the mass is the procurer 
not only of spiritual but also of temporal benefits, and therefore it can 
be offered for sins, for punishments, and for any other necessary uses. " 

LUTHEKAN DOCTEINE. 

"Augsburg Confession,'''' Pars 1, Art. 10; " Apol. Augs. Con/.," p. 157 
(Hase) ; "Formula Concordice," Pars 1, ch. 7, § 1. — "We believe, teach, 
and profess that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are 
truly and substantially present, and that together with the bread and 
wine they are truly distributed and received, g 2. — The words of Christ 
(this is my body) are to be understood only in their strictly literal sense; 
so that neither the bread signifies the absent body of Christ, nor the 
wine the absent blood of Christ, but so that on account of the sacra- 
mental union the bread and wine truly are the body and blood of Christ. 
§ 3. — As to what pertains to the consecration we believe, etc., that no 
human act, nor any utterance of the minister of the church, is the cause 
of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper, but that 
this is to be attributed solely to the omnipotent power of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. \ 5. — The grounds, however, on which, in this matter, we con- 
tend against the Sacramentarians, are these. . . The first ground is 
an article of our Christian faith, namely, Jesus Christ is true, essential, 
natural, perfect God and man, in unity of person inseparable and undi- 
vided. The second is that the right hand of God is everywhere; but 
there Christ has, truly and in very deed, been placed, in respect to his 
humanity, and therefore being present he rules, and holds in his hands 
and under his feet all things which are in heaven and on earth. The 
third is that the word of God can not be false. The fourth is that God 
knows and has in his power various modes in which it is possible to be 
in a place (present), and he was not restricted to that single mode of 
presence which philosophers have been accustomed to call local or cir- 
cumscribed. $ 6. — We believe, etc., that the body and blood of Christ 
are received not only spiritually through faith, but also by the mouth, 
not after a capernaitish, but a supernatural and celestial manner, by 
virtue of a sacramental union. . . \ 7. — We believe, etc., that not 
only those who believe in Christ, ancl worthily approach the Lord's 
Supper, but also the unworthy and unbelievers receive the true body 



AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS OF DOCTRINE. 649 

and blood of Christ, so that, however, they shall not thence derive either 
consolation or life, bnt rather that this receiving shall fall ont to judg- 
ment to them, unless they be converted and exercise repentance." 

Doctrine of the Befobmed Churches. 

" Gallic Con/.," Art. 36. — "Although Christ is now in heaven, there 
also to remain till he shall come to judge the world, yet we believe that 
he, by the hidden and incomprehensible power of his Spirit, nourishes 
and vivifies us with the substance of his body and blood, apprehended 
by faith." 

"Scottish Conf." — "And although there is great distance of place be- 
tween his now glorified body in heaven and us mortals now upon the 
earth, yet we nevertheless believe that the bread which we break is the 
communion of his body, and the cup which we bless is the communion 
of his blood. . . So we confess that believers in the right use of the 
Lord's Supper do thus eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus Christ; 
and we surely believe that he remains in them and they in him, yea, 
so become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones, that as the eternal 
divinity gives life and immortality to the flesh of Jesus Christ, so also, 
his flesh and blood, when eaten and drunk by us, confer on us the same 
privileges." 

"Belgic Conf.," Art. 35. 

Calvin's "Institutes," Bk. iv., Ch. 17, \ 10.— "The sum is, that the 
flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain 
and support our corporeal life. . . But though it seems an incredible 
thing that the flesh and blood of Christ, while at such a distance from us 
in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the 
secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how 
foolish it is to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore 
what our mind does not comprehend, let faith conceive; viz., that the 
Spirit truly unites things separated by space. That sacred communion 
of flesh and blood whereby Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it 
penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in his supper, 
and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting 
an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And 
truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down 
at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers 
only." 

"Thirty -nine Articles," Art. 28. — "The Supper of the Lord is a sacra- 
ment of the redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as 
rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we 
break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of bless- 
ing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. . . The body of Christ is 
given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spir- 
itual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received 
and eaten in the Supper is faith. The sacrament of the Lord's Sup- 
per was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or 
worshipped." 

"Heidelberg Cat.," Ques. 76. — "What is it to eat the crucified body 
of Christ and to drink his shed blood? It means, not only with thankful 
hearts to appropriate the passion of Christ, and thereby receive forgive- 
ness of sins and eternal life, but also and therein, through the Holy 
Ghost who dwelleth in Christ and in us, to be more and more united 
to his blessed body, so that, although he is in heaven, and we are upon 
earth, we nevertheless are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and 
live forever one spirit with him." 



650 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

"West. Con/. Faith," Ch. 29, | 5.— "The outward elements in this 
sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such a 
relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are 
sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the 
body and blood of Christ, albeit in substance and nature they still remain 
truly and only bread and wine. $ 7. — Worthy receivers, outwardly par- 
taking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly 
by faith, really and indeed, but not carnally and corporeally, but spir- 
itually receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all the benefits of his 
death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporeally or car- 
nally in, with, or under the bread and wine ; yet as really but spiritually 
present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements them- 
selves are to the outward senses." — See "Consensus Tigurinus" in 
Appendix. 



APPENDIX. 



THE CONSENSUS TIGURINUS 

AND 

THE FORMULA CONSENSUS HELVETICA. 



I. 

THE CONSENSUS TIGUEINUS. 

WRITTEN BY CALVIN, 1549, FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNITING ALL 

BRANCHES OF THE REFORMED CHURCH IN A COMMON 

DOCTRINE AS TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 



HEADS OF CONSENT. 

The whole Spiritual regimen of the Church leads us to Christ. 

I. Since Christ is the end of the Law, and the knowledge of Him 
comprehends in itself the entire sum of the Gospel, there is no doubt 
but that the whole spiritual regimen of the Church is designed to lead 
us to Christ; as through Him alone we reach God, who is the ultimate 
end of a blessed (holy) life; and so whoever departs in the least from 
this truth will never speak rightly or fitly respecting any of the ordi- 
nances of God. 

A true knowledge of the Sacraments from a knowledge of Christ. 

H. Moreover since the Sacraments are auxiliaries (appendices) of the 
Gospel, he certainly will discuss both aptly and usefully their nature, 
their power, their office and their fruit, who weaves his discourse from 
Christ; not merely touching the name of Christ incidentally, but truth- 
fully holding forth the purpose for which He was given to us by the 
Father, and the benefits which He has conferred upon us. 

Knowledge of Christ, what it involves. 

HI. Accordingly it must be held, that Christ, being the eternal Son 
of God, of the same essence and glory with the Father, put on our flesh 
in order that, by right of adoption, He might communicate to us what 
by nature was solely His own, to wit, that we should be sons of Cod. 
This takes place when we, ingrafted through faith into the body of 
Christ, and this by the power of the Holy Spirit, are first justified by 
the gratuitous imputation of righteousness, and then regenerated into a 
new life, that, new-created in the image of the Heavenly Father, we may 
put off the old man. 



652 APPENDIX. 

Christ, Priest and King. 

TV. We must therefore regard Christ in His flesh as a Priest, who has 
expiated our sins by His death, the only Sacrifice, blotted out all our 
iniquities by His obedience, procured for us a perfect righteousness, 
and now intercedes for us that we may have access to God; as an expia- 
tory Sacrifice whereby God was reconciled to the world; as a Brother, 
who from wretched sons of Adam has made us blessed sons of God; as a 
Restorer (Beparator), who by the power of His Spirit transforms all that 
is corrupt (vitiosum) in us, that we may no longer live unto the world 
and the flesh, and God himself may live in us; as a King, who enriches 
us with every kind of good, governs and preserves us by His power, 
establishes us with spiritual arms, delivers us from every evil, and re- 
strains and directs us by the sceptre of His mouth; and He is to be so 
regarded, that He may lift us up to Himself, very God, and to the 
Father, until that shall be fulfilled which is to be at last, that God be 
all in all. 

How Christ communicates Himself to us. 

V. Moreover in order that Christ may manifest Himself such a one 
to us and produce such effects in us, it behooves us to be made one with 
Him and grow together in His body. For He diffuses His life in us in 
no other way than by being our Head; "from whom the whole body 
fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, 
according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh 
increase of the body " (Eph. iv. 16). 

Communion spiritual. Sacraments instituted. 

VI. This communion which we have with the Son of God, is spiritual; 
so that He, dwelling in us by His Spirit, makes all of us who believe 
partakers of all the good that resides in Him. To bear witness of this, 
both the preaching of the Gospel and the use of the Sacraments, Holy 
Baptism and the Holy Supper were instituted. 

■ The Ends of the Sacraments. 

VII. The Sacraments, however, have also these ends: — to be marks 
and tokens of Christian profession and (Christian) association, or broth- 
erhood; to incite gratitude (thanksgiving), and to be exercises of faith 
and a pious life, in short, bonds (sealed contracts) making these things 
obligatory. But among other ends this one is chief, that by these 
Sacraments God attests, presents anew, and seals to us His grace. For 
while they indeed signify nothing more than is declared in the word it- 
self, yet it is no small matter that they are presented to our eyes as lively 
symbols which better affect our feeling, leading us to the reality [in rem), 
while they recall to memory Christ's death and all the benefits thereof, 
in order that faith may have more vigorous exercise; and finally, it is of 
no little moment that what was proclaimed to us by the mouth of God, 
is confirmed and sanctioned by seals. 

Thanksgiving. 

VIII. Moreover, since the testimonials and seals of His grace, which 
the Lord has given us, are verities, surely He himself will beyond all 
doubt make good to us inwardly, by His Spirit, what the Sacraments 
symbolize to our eyes and other senses, viz. , possession of Christ as the 






CONSENSUS TIGURINUS. 653 

fountain of all blessings, then reconciliation to God by virtue of His 
death, restoration by the Spirit unto holiness of life, and finally attain- 
ment of righteousness and salvation ; accompanied with thanksgiving for 
these mercies, which were formerly displayed on the cross, and through 
faith are daily received by us. 

The signs and the things signified are not separated, but distinct. 

IX. "Wherefore, though we rightly make a distinction between the 
signs and the things signified, yet we do not separate the verity from the 
signs ; but we believe, that all who by faith embrace the promises therein 
offered, do spiritually receive Christ and His spiritual gifts, and so also 
they who have before been made partakers of Christ, do continue and 
renew their communion. 

In the Sacraments the promise is chiefly to be kepi in view. 

X. For not to the bare signs, but rather to the promise which is 
annexed to them, it becomes us to look. As far then as our faith ad- 
vances in the promise offered in the Sacraments, so far will this power 
and efficacy of which we speak exert itself. Accordingly the matter 
[materia) of the water, bread or wine, by no means present Christ to us, 
nor makes us partakers of His spiritual gifts; but we must look rather to 
the promise, whose office it is to lead us to Christ by the right way of 
faith, and this faith makes us partakers of Christ. 

The Elements are not to be superstitiously worshipped. 

XL Hence the error of those who superstitiously worship (obstupe- 
scunt) the elements, and rest therein the assurance of their salvation, falls 
to the ground. For the Sacraments apart from Christ are nothing but 
empty masks; and they themselves clearly declare to all this truth, that 
we must cling to nothing else bat Christ alone, and in nothing else must 
the free gift of salvation be sought. 

The Sacraments [per se) have no efficacy. 

XII. Furthermore, if any benefit is conferred upon us by the Sacra- 
ments, this does not proceed from any virtue of their own, even though 
the promise whereby they are distinguished be included. For it is God 
alone who works by His Spirit. And in using the instrumentality of the 
Sacraments, He thereby neither infuses into them His own power, nor 
abates in the least the efficiency of His Spirit; but in accordance with 
the capacity of our ignorance (ruditas) He uses them as instruments in 
such a way that the whole efficiency (facultas agendi) remains solely with 
Himself. 

God uses the instrument but in such a way that all the power (virtus) is His. 

XIII. Therefore, as Paul advises us that "neither is he that planteth 
any thing, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase " 
(1 Cor. iii. 7) ; so also it may be said of the Sacraments, that they are 
nothing, for they will be of no avail except God work the whole to com- 
pletion [in solid um omnia efficial). They are indeed instruments with 
which God works efficiently, when it pleases Him, but in such a manner 
that the whole work of our salvation must be credited solely to Him. 

XIV. We have therefore decided that it is solely Christ who verily 
baptizes us within, who makes us partakers of Him in the Supper, who, 



654 APPENDIX. 

in fine, fulfils what the Sacraments symbolize, and so uses indeed, these 
instruments, that the whole efficiency resides in His Spirit. 

How the Sacraments confirm. 

XV. So the Sacraments are sometimes called seals, are said to nour- 
ish, confirm, and promote faith; and yet the Spirit alone is properly the 
seal, and the same Spirit is the originator and perfecter of our faith. 
For all these attributes of the Sacraments occupy a subordinate place, 
so that not even the least portion of the work of our salvation is trans- 
ferred from its sole author to either the creature or the elements. 

Not all tcho participate in the Sacraments partake also of the verity. 

XVI. Moreover, we sedulously teach that God does not exert His 
power promiscuously in all who receive the Sacraments, but only in the 
elect. For just as he enlightens unto faith none but those whom He 
has foreordained unto life, so by the hidden power of His spirit He 
causes only the elect to receive what the Sacraments offer. 

The Sacraments do not confer grace. 

XVH. This doctrine refutes that invention of sophists which teaches 
that the Sacraments of the New Covenant confer grace on all who do 
not interpose the impediment of a mortal sin. For besides the truth 
that nothing is received in the Sacraments except by faith, it is also to 
be held that God's grace is not in the least so linked to the Sacraments 
themselves that whoever has the sign possesses also the reality (res) ; for 
the signs are administered to the reprobate as well as to the elect, but 
the verity of the signs comes only to the latter. 

God's gifts are offered to all; believers alone receive them. 

XVIII. It is indeed certain that Christ and His gifts (dona) are offered 
to all alike, and that the verity of God is not so impaired by the unbelief 
of men that the Sacraments do not always retain their proper virtue (vim) ; 
but all persons are not capable of receiving Christ and His gifts (dona). 
Therefore on God's part there is no variableness, but on the part of men 
each one receives according to the measure of his faith. 

Believers have communion with Christ, before and without the use of the 

Sacraments. 

XIX. Moreover, as the use of the Sacraments confers on unbelievers 
nothing more than if they had abstained therefrom, indeed, is only per- 
nicious to them; so without their use the verity which they symbolize 
endures to those who believe. Thus in Baptism were washed away 
Paul's sins, which had already been washed away before. Thus also 
Baptism was to Cornelius the washing of regeneration, and yet he had 
already received the gift of the Holy Spirit. So in the Supper Christ 
communicates himself to us, and yet He imparted himself to us before, 
and abides continually in us forever. For since each one is commanded 
to examine himself, it hence follows that faith is required of each before 
he comes to the Sacraments. And yet there is no faith without Christ; 
but in so far as in the Sacraments faith is confirmed and grows, God's 
gifts are confirmed in us, and so in a measure Christ grows in us and 
we in Him. 



CONSENSUS TIGURINUS. 655 

Grace is not so joined to ike act of the Sacraments, that their fruit is received 
immediately after the act. 

XX. The benefit also which we derive from the Sacraments should 
by no means be restricted to the time in which they are administered to 
us; just as if the visible sign when brought forward into view, did at the 
same moment with itself bring God's grace. For those who are baptized 
in early infancy, God regenerates in boyhood, in budding youth, and 
sometimes even in old age. So the benefit of Baptism lies open to the 
whole course of life; for the promise which it contains is perpetually 
valid. It may, also, sometimes happen, that a partaking of the Supper, 
which in the act itself brought us little good because of our inconsider- 
ateness or dullness, afterward brings forth its fruit. 

Local imagination should be suppressed. 

XXI. Especially should every conception of local (bodily) presence 
be suppressed. For while the signs are here in the world seen by the 
eyes, and felt by the hands, Christ, in so far as He is man, we must con- 
template as in no other place but heaven, and seek Him in no other way 
than with the mind and faith's understanding. Wherefore it is a pre- 
posterous and impious superstition to enclose Him under elements of 
this world. 

Exposition of the words of the Lord's Supper, " This is my body.''' 1 

XXH. We therefore repudiate as absurd interpreters, those who 
urge the precise literal sense, as they say, of the customary words in the 
Supper, "This is my body," "This is my blood." For we place it be- 
yond all controversy that these words are to be understood figuratively, 
so that the bread and the wine are said to be that which they signify. 
And verily it ought not to seem novel or unusual that the name of the 
thing signified be transferred by metonomy to the sign, for expressions 
of this kind are scattered throughout the Scriptures; and saying this we 
assert nothing that does not plainly appear in all the oldest and most 
approved writers of the Church. 

Concerning the eating of the body of Christ. 

XXm. Moreover, that Christ, through faith by the power of His 
Holy Spirit, feeds our souls with the eating of His flesh and the drinking 
of His blood, is not to be understood as if any commingling or transfu- 
sion of substance occurred, but as meaning that from flesh once offered 
in sacrifice and blood once poured out in expiation we derive life. 

Against Transubstantiation and other silly conceits. 

XXIY. In this way not only is the invention of Papists about tran- 
substantiation refuted, but also all the gross fictions and futile subtleties 
which are either derogatory to His divine glory or inconsistent with the 
verity of His human nature. For we consider it no less absurd to locate 
Christ under the bread, or conjoin Him with the bread, than to transub- 
stantiate the bread into His body. 

Chrisfs body is in heaven as in a place. 

XXY. But in order that no ambiguity may remain, when we say that 
Christ should be contemplated as in heaven, the phrase implies and ex- 
presses a difference of place (a distance between places). For though, 



656 APPENDIX. 

philosophically speaking, "above the heavens" is not a locality, yet 
because the body of Christ — as the nature and the limitation of the 
human body show — is finite, and is contained in heaven as in a place, it 
is therefore necessarily separated from us by as great an interval as lies 
between heaven and earth. 

Christ is not to be worshipped in the bread. 

XXYI. But if it is not right for us in imagination to affix Christ to 
the bread and wine, much less is it lawful to worship Him in the bread. 
For though the bread is presented to us as a symbol and pledge of our 
communion with Christ, yet because it is the sign, not the reality, neither 
has the reality enclosed in it or affixed to it, they therefore who bend 
their minds upon it to worship Christ, make it an idol. 



II. 

FOKMULA CONSENSUS HELVETICA. 

COMPOSED AT ZURICH, A. D. 1675, BY JOHN HENRY HEIDEGGER, OF ZURICH, 
ASSISTED BY FRANCIS TURRETINE, OF GENEVA, AND LUKE GERNLER, 
OF BASLE, AND DESIGNED TO CONDEMN AND EXCLUDE THAT MODIFIED 
FORM OF CALVINISM, WHICH, IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, EMA- 
NATED FROM THE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL AT SAUMUR, REPRESENTED 
BYAMYRAULT, PLAC^EUS, AND DAILLE ; ENTITLED "FORM OF AGREEMENT 
OF THE HELVETIC REFORMED CHURCHES RESPECTING THE DOCTRINE OF 
UNIVERSAL GRACE, THE DOCTRINES CONNECTED THEREWITH, AND SOME 



CANONS. 

I. God, the Supreme Judge, not only took care to have His word, 
which is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" 
^Bom. i. 16), committed to writing by Moses, the Prophets, and the 
Apostles, but has also watched and cherished it with paternal care ever 
since it was written up to the present time, so that it could not be cor- 
rupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man. Therefore the Church justly 
ascribes it to His singular grace and goodness that she has, and will have 
to the end of the world, a " sure word of prophecy " and " Holy Script- 
ures " (2 Tim. iii. 15), from which, though heaven and earth perish, "one 
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass " (Matt. v. 18). 

II. But, in particular, the Hebrew Original of the Old Testament, 
which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the 
Jewish Church, unto whom formerly "were committed the oracles of 
God" (Rom. iii. 2), is, not only in its consonants, but in its vowels — 
either the vowel points themselves, or at least the power of the points 
— not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired of God, thus forming, 



FORMULA CONSENSUS HELVETICA. 657 

together with the Original of the New Testament, the sole and complete 
rule of our faith and life; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all 
extant versions, oriental and occidental, ought to be applied, and where- 
ever they differ, be conformed. 

III. Therefore we can by no means approve the opinion of those 
who declare that the text which the Hebrew Original exhibits was deter- 
mined by man's will alone, and do not scruple at all to remodel a Hebrew 
reading which they consider unsuitable, and amend it from the Greek 
Versions of the LXX and others, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Ohaldee 
Targums, or even from other sources, yea, sometimes from their own 
reason alone; and furthermore, they do not acknowledge any other read- 
ing to be genuine except that which can be educed by the critical power 
of the human judgment from the collation of editions with each other 
and with the various readings of the Hebrew Original itself — which, they 
maintain, has been corrupted in various ways; and finally, they affirm 
that besides the Hebrew edition of the present time, there are in the 
Versions of the ancient interpreters which differ from our Hebrew con- 
text other Hebrew Originals, since these Versions are also indicative of 
ancient Hebrew Originals differing from each other. Thus they bring 
the foundation of our faith and its inviolable authority into perilous 
hazard. 

IV. Before the foundation of the world God purposed in Christ Jesus, 
our Lord, an eternal purpose (Eph. iii. 11), in which, from the mere good 
pleasure of His own will, without any prevision of the merit of works or 
of faith, unto the praise of His glorious grace, out of the human race 
lying in the same mass of corruption and of common blood, and, there- 
fore, corrupted by sin, He elected a certain and definite number to be led, 
in time, unto salvation by Christ, their Surety and sole Mediator, and 
on account of His merit, by the mighty power of the regenerating Holy 
Spirit, to be effectually called, regenerated, and gifted with faith and 
repentance. So, indeed, God, determining to illustrate His glory, de- 
creed to create man perfect, in the first place, then, permit him to fall, 
and at length pity some of the fallen, and therefore elect those, but 
leave the rest in the corrupt mass, and finally give them over to eternal 
destruction. 

V. In that gracious decree of Divine Election, moreover, Christ him- 
self is also included, not as the meritorious cause, or foundation anterior 
to Election itself, but as being Himself also elect (1 Peter ii. 4, 6), fore- 
known before the foundation of the world, and accordingly, as the first 
requisite of the execution of the decree of Election, chosen Mediator, and 
our first born Brother, whose precious merit God determined to use for 
the purpose of conferring, without detriment to His own justice, salva- 
tion upon us. For the Holy Scriptures not only declare that Election 
was made according to the mere good pleasure of the Divine counsel and 
will (Eph. i. 5, 9; Matt. xi. 26), but also make the appointment and giv- 
ing of Christ, our Mediator, to proceed from the strenuous love of God 
the Father toward the world of the elect. 

VI. Wherefore we can not give suffrage to the opinion of those who 
teach: — (1) that God, moved by philanthropy, or a sort of special love 
for the fallen human race, to previous election, did, in a kind of condi- 
tioned willing — willingness — first moving of pity, as they call it — ineffi- 
cacious desire — purpose the salvation of all and each, at least, condition- 
ally, i. e., if they would believe; (2) that He appointed Christ Mediator 
for all and each of the fallen; and (3) that, at length, certain ones whom 
He regarded, not simply as sinners in the first Adam, but as redeemed 

42 



658 APPENDIX. 

in the second Adam, He elected, i. e., He determined to graciously be- 
stow on these, in time, the saving gift of faith; and in this sole act Elec- 
tion properly so called is complete. For these and all other kindred 
teachings are in no wise insignificant deviations from the form of sound 
words respecting Divine Election; because the Scriptures do not extend 
unto all and each God's purpose of showing mercy to man, but restrict 
it to the elect alone, the reprobate being excluded, even by name, as 
Esau, whom God hated with an eternal hatred (Rom. ix. 10-13). The 
same Holy Scriptures testify that the counsel and the will of God change 
not, but stand immovable, and God in the heavens doeih whatsoever he 
will (Ps. cxv. 3; Isa. xlvi. 10); for God is infinitely removed from all that 
human imperfection which characterizes inefficacious affections and de- 
sires, rashness, repentance, and change of purpose. The appointment, 
also, of Christ, as Mediator, equally with the salvation of those who were 
given to Him for a possession and an inheritance that can not be taken 
away, proceeds from one and the same Election, and does not underly 
Election as its foundation. 

VII. As all His works were known unto God from eternity (Acts xv. 
18), so in time, according to His infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, 
He made man, the glory and end of His works, in His own image, and, 
therefore, upright, wise, and just. Him, thus constituted, He put under 
the Covenant of Works, and in this Covenant freely promised him com- 
munion with God, favor, and life, if indeed he acted in obedience to 
His will. 

VIII. Moreover that promise annexed to the Covenant of Works was 
not a continuation only of earthly life and happiness, but the possession 
especially of life eternal and celestial, a life, namely, of both body and 
soul in heaven — if indeed man ran the course of perfect obedience — with 
unspeakable joy in communion with God. For not only did the Tree 
of Life prefigure this very thing unto Adam, but the power of the law, 
which, being fulfilled by Christ, who went under it in our stead, awards 
to us no other than celestial life in Christ who kept the righteousness of 
the law (Rom. ii. 26), manifestly proves the same, as also the opposite 
threatening of death both temporal and eternal. 

IX. Wherefore we can not assent to the opinion of those who deny 
that a reward of heavenly bliss was proffered to Adam on condition of 
obedience to God, and do not admit that the promise of the Covenant 
of Works was any thing more than a promise of perpetual life abound- 
ing in every kind of good that can be suited to the body and soul 
of man in a state of perfect nature, and the enjoyment thereof in an 
earthly Paradise. Eor this also is contrary to the sound sense of the 
Divine Word, and weakens the power (potestas) of the law in itself 
considered. 

X. As, however, God entered into the Covenant of Works not only 
with Adam for himself, but also, in him as the head and root [stirps), 
with the whole human race, who would, by virtue of. the blessing of the 
nature derived from him, inherit also the same perfection, provided he 
continued therein; so Adam by his mournful fall, not only for himself, 
but also for the whole human race that would be born of bloods and the 
will of the flesh, sinned and lost the benefits promised in the Covenant. 
We hold, therefore, that the sin of Adam is imputed by the mysterious 
and just judgment of God to all his posterity. For the Apostle testifies 
that in Adam all sinned, by one man's disobedience many were made sinners 
(Rom. v. 12, 19), and in Adam all die (1 Cor. xv. 21, 22). But < there 
appears no way in which hereditary corruption could fall, as a spiritual 



FORMULA CONSENSUS HELVETICA. 659 

death, upon the whole human race by the just judgment of God, unless 
some sin [delictum) of that race preceded, incurring (inducens) the penalty 
(reatum, guilt) of that death. For God, the supremely just Judge of all 
the earth, punishes none but the guilty. 

XI. For a double reason, therefore, man, because of sin (post peccatum) 
is by nature, and hence from his birth, before committing any actual sin, 
exposed to God's wrath and curse; first, on account of the transgression 
and disobedience which he committed in the loins of Adam; and, sec- 
ondly, on account of the consequent hereditary corruption implanted in 
his very conception, whereby his whole nature is depraved and spir- 
itually dead; so that original sin may rightly be regarded as twofold, 
viz., imputed sin and inherent hereditary sin. 

XII. Accordingly we can not, without harm to Divine truth, give 
assent to those who deny that Adam represented his posterity by appoint- 
ment of God, and that his sin is imputed, therefore, immediately to his 
posterity; and under the term imputation mediate and consequent not only 
destroy the imputation of the first sin, but also expose the doctrine 
(assertio) of hereditary corruption to great danger. 

XIII. As Christ was from eternity elected the Head, Prince, and 
Lord (Hoeres) of all who, in time, are saved by His grace, so also, in 
time, He was made Surety of the New Covenant only for those who, 
by the eternal Election, were given to Him as His own people (popidus 
peculii), His seed and inheritance. For according to the determinate 
counsel of the Father and His own intention, He encountered dreadful 
death instead of the elect alone, restored only these into the bosom of 
the Father's grace, and these only he reconciled to God, the offended 
Father, and delivered from the curse of the law. For our Jesus saves 
His people from their sins (Matt. i. 21), who gave His life a ransom for 
many sheep (Matt. xx. 28; John x. 15), His own, who hear His voice 
(John x. 27, 28), and for these only He also intercedes, as a divinely 
appointed Priest, and not for the world (John xvii. 9). Accordingly in 
the death of Christ, only the elect, who in time are made new creatures 
(2 Cor. v. 17), and for whom Christ in His death was substituted as an 
expiatory sacrifice, are regarded as having died with Him and as being 
justified from sin; and thus, with the counsel of the Father who gave to 
Christ none but the elect to be redeemed, and also with the working of 
the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies and seals unto a living hope of eternal 
life none but the elect, the will of Christ who died so agrees and ami- 
cably conspires in perfect harmony, that the sphere of the Father's election 
(Patris eligentis), the Son's redemption (Filii redimeniis), and the Spirit's 
sanctification (Spirilus S. sanctificantis) is one and the same (cequalis pateat). 

XIV. This very thing further appears in this also, that Christ merited 
for those in whose stead He died the means of salvation, especially the 
regenerating Spirit and the heavenly gift of faith, as well as salvation 
itself, and actually confers these upon them. For the Scriptures testify 
that Christ, the Lord, came to save the lost sheep of die house of Israel 
(Matt. xv. 24), and sends the same Holy Spirit, the fount of regenera- 
tion, as His own (John xvi. 7, 8); that among the better promises of the 
New Covenant of which He was made Mediator and Surety this one is 
pre-eminent, that He will write His law, i. e., the law of faith, in the hearts 
of his people (Heb. viii. 10); that whatsoever the Father has given to Christ 
will come to Him, by faith, surely; and finally, that we are c'liosen. in Christ 
to be holy and without blame, and, moreover, children by Him (Eph. i. 4, 5); 
but our being holy and children of God proceeds only from faith and the 
Spirit of regeneration. 



660 APPENDIX. 

XV. But by the obedience of his death Christ instead of the elect so 
satisfied God the Father, that in the estimate, nevertheless, of His vica- 
rious righteousness and of that obedience, all of that which He rendered 
to the law, as its just servant, during the whole course of His life, 
whether by doing or by suffering, ought to be called obedience. For 
Christ's life, according to the Apostle's testimony (Philip, ii. 7, 8), was 
nothing but a continuous emptying of self, submission and humiliation, 
descending step by step to the very lowest extreme, even the death of 
the Cross; and the Spirit of God plainly declares that Christ in our stead 
satisfied the law and Divine justice by His most holy life, and makes that 
ransom with which God has redeemed us to consist not in His sufferings 
only, but in His whole life conformed to the law. The Spirit, however, 
ascribes our redemption to the death, or the blood, of Christ, in no 
other sense than that it was consummated by sufferings; and from that 
last terminating and grandest act derives a name [denominationem facit) 
indeed, but in such a way as by no means to separate the life preceding 
from His death. 

XVI. Since all these things are entirely so, surely we can not approve 
the contrary doctrine of those who affirm that of His own intention, by 
His own counsel and that of the Father who sent Him, Christ died for 
all and each upon the impossible condition, provided they believe; that 
He obtained for all a salvation, which, nevertheless, is not applied to all, 
and by His death merited salvation and faith for no one individually and 
certainly [proprie et ac/u), but only removed the obstacle of Divine justice, 
and acquired for the Father the liberty of entering into a new covenant 
of grace with all men; and finally, they so separate the active and passive 
righteousness of Christ, as to assert that He claims His active righteous- 
ness for himself as His own, but gives and imputes only His passive 
righteousness to the elect. All these opinions, and all that are like these, 
are contrary to the plain Scriptures and the glory of Christ, who is 
Author and Finisher of our faith and salvation; they make His cross of 
none effect, and under the appearance of augmenting His merit, they 
really diminish it. 

XVII. The call unto salvation was suited to its due time (1 Tim. ii. 6) ; 
since by God's will it was at one time more restricted, at another, more 
extended and general, but never absolutely universal. For, indeed, in 
the Old Testament God showed His word unto Jacob, His statutes and His 
judgments unto Israel ; He dealt not so with any nation (Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20). 
In the New Testament, peace being made in the blood of Christ' and 
the inner wall of partition broken down, God so extended the limits 
{pomceria) of Gospel preaching and the external call, that there is no 
longer any difference between the Jew and the Greek ; for the same Lord over 
all is rich unto all that call upon Him (Rom. x. 12). But not even thus is 
the call universal; for Christ testifies that many are crdled (Matt. xx. 16), 
not all; and when Paul and Timothy essayed to go into Bithynia to 
preach the Gosr^el, the Spirit suffered them not (Acts xvi. 7); and there 
have been and there are to-day, as experience testifies, innumerable 
myriads of men to whom Christ is not known even by rumor. 

" XVELT. Meanwhile God left not himself without witness (Acts xiv. 17) 
unto those whom He refused to call by His Word unto salvation. For 
He divided unto them the spectacle of the heavens and the stars (Deut. 
iv. 19), and that which may be known of God, even from the works of 
nature and Providence, He hath showed unto them (Rom. i. 19), for the 
purpose of attesting His long suffering. Yet it is not to be affirmed that 
the works of nature and Divine Providence were means (organa), suffi- 



FORMULA CONSENSUS HELVETICA. 661 

cient of themselves and fulfilling the function of the external call, where- 
by He would reveal unto them the mystery of the good pleasure or mercy 
of God in Christ. For the Apostle immediately adds (Bom. i. 20), "The 
invisible things of Him from the creation are clearly seen, being under- 
stood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead;'''' 
not His hidden good pleasure in Christ, and not even to the end that 
thence they might learn the mystery of salvation through Christ, but 
that they might be without excuse, because they did not use aright the 
knowledge that was left them, but when they knew God, they glorified Him 
not as God, ^neither were thankful. Wherefore also Christ glorifies God, 
His Father, because He had hidden these things from the wise and the pru- 
dent, and revealed them unto babes (Matt. xi. 25) ; and the Apostle teaches, 
moreover, that God has made known unto us the mystery of His will 
according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself {in 
Christo), (Eph. i. 9). 

XIX. Likewise the external call itself, which is made by the preach- 
ing of the Gospel, is on the part of God also, who calls, earnest and sin- 
cere. For in His Word He unfolds earnestly and most truly, not, indeed, 
His secret intention respecting the salvation or destruction of each indi- 
vidual, but what belongs to our duty, and what remains for us if we do 
or neglect this duty. Clearly it is the will of God who calls, that they 
who are called come to Him and not neglect so great salvation, and so 
He promises eternal life also in good earnest, to those who come to Him 
by faith; for, as the Apostle declares, "it is a faithful saying: — For if we 
be dead with Him, we shall also live with Him; if we suffer, we shall also 
reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us; if we believe not, 
yet He abideth faithful; He can not deny Himself." Nor in regard to 
those who do not obey the call is this will inefficacious; for God always 
attains that which He intends in His will {quod volens inlendit), even the 
demonstration of duty, and following this, either the salvation of the 
elect who do their duty, or the inexcusableness of the rest who neglect 
the duty set before them. Surely the spiritual man in no way secures 
(conciliat) the internal purpose of God to produce faith (conceptum Dei 
internum, fidei analogum) along with the externally proffered, or written 
Word of God. Moreover, because God approved every verity which 
flows from His counsel, therefore it is rightly said to be His will, that 
all who see the Son and believe on Him may have everlasting life (John vi. 
40). Although these " all " are the elect alone, and God formed no plan 
of universal salvation without any selection of persons, and Christ there- 
fore died not for every one but for the elect only who were given to Him ; 
yet He intends this in any case to be universally true, which follows from 
His special and definite purpose. But that, by God's will, the elect alone 
believe in the external call thus universally proffered, while the repro- 
bate are hardened, proceeds solely from the discriminating grace of God: 
election by the same grace to them that believe; but their own native 
wickedness to the reprobate who remain in sin, and after their hard- 
ness and impenitent heart treasure up unto themselves wrath against 
the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God 
(Eom. ii. 5). 

XX. Accordingly we have no doubt that they err who hold that the 
call unto salvation is disclosed not by the preaching of the Gospel solely, 
but even by the works of nature and Providence without any further 
proclamation; adding, that the call unto salvation is so indefinite and 
universal that there is no mortal who is not, at least objectively, as they 
say, sufficiently called either mediately, namely, in that God will further 



662 APPENDIX. 

bestow the light of grace on him who rightly uses the light of nature, or 
immediately, unto Christ and salvation; and finally denying that the ex- 
ternal call can be said to be serious and true, or the candor and sincerity 
of God be defended, without asserting the absolute universality of grace. 
For such doctrines are contrary to the Holy Scriptures and the experi- 
ence of all ages, and manifestly confound nature with grace, that which 
may be known of God with His hidden wisdom, the light of reason, in 
fine, with the light of Divine Revelation. 

XXI. They who are called unto salvation through the preaching of 
the Gospel can neither believe nor obey the call, unless they are raised 
up out of spiritual death by that very power whereby God commanded 
the light to shine out of darkness, and God shines into their hearts with 
the soul-swaying grace of His Spirit, to give the light of the knowledge of 
the glory of God in the face' of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. iv. 6). For the natural 
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto 
him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 
ii. 14) ; and this utter inability the Scripture demonstrates by so many 
direct testimonies and under so many emblems that scarcely in any other 
point is it surer [locupletior). This inability may, indeed, be called moral 
even in so far as it pertains to a moral subject or object; but it ought at 
the same time to be also called natural, inasmuch as man by nature, and 
so by the law of his formation in the womb, and hence from his birth, is 
the child of disobedience (Eph. ii. 2) ; and has that inability so innate {con- 
genitam) that it can be shaken off in no way except by the omnipotent 
heart-turning grace of the Holy Spirit. 

XXII. We hold therefore that they speak with too little accuracy and 
not without danger, who call this inability to believe moral inability, 
and do not hold it to be natural, adding that man in whatever condition 
he may be placed is able to believe if he will, and that faith in some way 
or other, indeed, is self-originated ; and yet the Apostle most distinctly 
calls it the gift of God (Eph. ii. 8). 

XXIII. There are two ways in which God, the just Judge, has prom- 
ised justification : either by one's own works or deeds in the law ; or by 
the obedience or righteousness of another, even of Christ our Surety, 
imputed by grace to him that believes in the Gospel. The former is the 
method of justifying man perfect ; but the latter, of justifying man a 
sinner and corrupt. In accordance with these two ways of justification 
the Scripture establishes two covenants: the Covenant of Works, entered 
into with Adam and with each one of his descendants in him, but made 
void by sin; and the Covenant of Grace, made with only the elect in 
Christ, the second Adam, eternal, and liable to no abrogation, as the 
former. 

XXIV. But this later Covenant of Grace according to the diversity of 
times had also different dispensations. Eor when the Apostle speaks of 
the dispensation of the fulness of times, i. e. , the administration of the 
last time, he very clearly indicates that there had been another dispensa- 
tion and administration for the times which the 7rpoQs6yiav (Gal. iv. 2), 
or appointed time. Yet in each dispensation of the Covenant of Grace 
the elect have not been saved in any other way than by the Angel of his 
presence (Is. lxiii. 9), the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 
xiii. 8), Christ Jesus, through the knowledge of that just Servant and 
faith in Him and in the Father and His Spirit. For Christ is the same 
yesterday, to-day, and forever (Heb. xiii. 8); and by His grace we, believe 
that we are saved [servari) in the same manner as the Fathers also were 
saved (salvati sunt), and in both Testaments these statutes remain im- 



FORMULA CONSENSUS HELVETICA. 663 

mutable: "Blessed are all they that put their trust iu Him," the Son 
(Ps. ii. 12); "He that belieyeth in Hiui is not condemned, but he that 
believeth not is condemned already" (John hi. 18); "Ye believe in God," 
even the Father, "believe also in me " (John xiv. 1). But if, moreover, 
the sainted Fathers believed in Christ as their Goel, it follows that they 
also believed in the Holy Spirit, without whom no one can call Jesus 
Lord. Truly so many are the clearest exhibitions of this faith of the 
Fathers and of the necessity thereof in either Covenant, that they can 
not escape any one unless he wills it. But though this saving knowledge 
of Christ and the Holy Trinity was necessarily derived, according to the 
dispensation of that time, both from the promise and from shadows and 
figures and enigmas, with greater difficulty [operosius) than now in the 
New Testament; yet it was a true knowledge, and, in proportion to the 
measure of Divine Revelation, was sufficient to procure for the elect, by 
help of God's grace, salvation and peace of conscience. 

XXV. We disapprove therefore of the doctrine of those who fabricate 
for us three Covenants, the Natural, the Legal, and the Gospel Covenant, 
different in their whole nature and pith; and in explaining these and 
assigning their differences, so intricately entangle themselves that they 
obscure not a little, or even impair, the nucleus of solid truth and piety; 
nor do they hesitate at all, with regard to the necessity, under the Old 
Testament dispensation, of knowledge of Christ and faith in Him and 
His satisfaction and in the whole sacred Trinity, to theologize much too 
loosely and not without danger. 

XXVI. Finally, both unto us, to whom in the Church, which is God's 
house, has been entrusted the dispensation for the present, and unto all 
our Nazarenes, and unto those who under the will and direction of God 
will at any time succeed us in our charge, in order to prevent the fearful 
enkindling of dissensions with which the Church of God in different 
places is disturbed [infestatur) in terrible ways, we earnestly wish (volumus, 
will) this to be a law : — 

That in this corruption of the world, with the Apostle of the Gentiles 
as our faithful monitor, we all keep faithfully thai which is committed to our 
trust, avoiding profane and rain babblings (1 Tim. vi. 20) ; and religiously 
guard the purity and simplicity of that knowledge which is according 
to piety, constantly clinging to that beautiful pair, Charity and Faith, 
unstained. 

Moreover, in order that no one may be induced to propose either 
publicly or privately some doubtful or new dogma of faith hitherto un- 
heard of in our churches, and contrary to God's "Word, to our Helvetic 
Confession, our Symbolical Books, and to the Canons of the Synod of 
Dort, and not proved and sanctioned in a public assembly of brothers 
according to the Word of God, let it also be a law: — 

That we not only hand down sincerely in accordance with the Divine 
Word, the especial necessity of the sanctincation of the Lord's Day, but 
also impressively inculcate it and importunately urge its observation; and, 
in fine, that in our churches and schools, as often as occasion demands, 
we unanimously and faithfully hold, teach, and assert the truth of the 
Canons herein recorded, truth deduced from the indubitable Word of 
God. 

The very God of peace in truth sanctify us wholly, and preserve our 
whole spirit and soul and body blameless unto the coming of our Lord 
Jesus Christ ! to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit be eternal 
honor, praise and glory. Amen ! 



INDEX 



ABELARD, 422 

ABILITY and Liberty distinguished, 

339 
ABSOLUTE, The, 130, 132, 133, 134 
ADOPTION, 515-519 

The word defined, 515, 516 

The "Ordo Salutis" stated, 517, 
518 

Benefits of, 519 
ADVENT, Second. (See Second Ad- 
vent ) 
ESTHETICS, 19 
AG RICO LA, John, 404 
A INS WORTH, 588 
ALEXANDER, Dr. A., 61, 286, 379 
ALEXANDER, Dr. J. A., 22, 28, 181, 

182 
ALEXANDER, Dr. Lindsay W., 633 
A LOG I 196, 197 
AMBROSE, 94 
AMESIUS, 356, 516 
AMYRANT, 231 
ANGELS, 249-257 

Their nature, characters, titles, offi- 
ces, orders, and power, 249-251 

Archangel, 251 

Their bodies, 252 

Romish doctrine of worship of, 253 

Guardian, 254 

Evil, 254-256 

Personality of Satan, 254 

Demoniacal possession, 256, 257 
ANNIHILA TIONISM, 313 

During Intermediate State, 554, 
555 

After final Judgment, 583 
ANSELM, 46, 421, 423 
ANTHROPOLOGY, 23, 101, 106, 108, 
109, 280 

Of Greek Church, 94 
ANTHROPOMORPHISM, good and 
bad sense of, 131, 132 

Scripture Passages explained, 132 
ANTINOMIANISM 404, 405, 526 
ANTI-THEISTIC Theories, 46-52 
APOLLINARIAN Heresies, 386 
APOLLINARIS, 386 
APOLOGETICS, 19 



APOLOGY for Augsburg Conf., 123, 
355, 480, 513, 540, 546, 590, 601, 
628, 629 
APOLOGY for Conf. of Remonstrants, 

337, 447, 456 
APOSTLES' CREED. (See Creeds.) 
APOSTLES had no successors, 89 
A PRIORI Argument. (See God.) 
AQUINAS, Thomas, 99, 272, 403, 413, 

512, 590, 637 
ARCHANGEL. (See Angels.) - 
ARCHAEOLOGY, 18 

Biblical, 21 
ARGYLL, Duke of, 270, 296, 298 
ARIANS, 103, 167, 180, 196 
ARISTOTELIAN Philosophy, 63 
ARIUS, 174 

ARMINIUS, James, 104, 355, 363, 531 
ARMINIAN Churches, 104 
ARMINIANISM, 96, 98, 107-109, 151, 
152, 202, 207, 223, 224, 231 
Doctrine of will, 292-294 
Of Original Righteousness, 302, 307 
Of Perfection, 321 
Of Original Sin, 334, 335 
Of. Inability, 339 
Of Justice of God in the antenatal 

forfeiture of mankind, 352 
Of Atonement, 413, 415 
Of Effectual Calling, 447, 451, 453, 

455 
Of Justifying Faith, 503 
Of Justification, 508, 509, 514 
Of Perseverance, 543 
Of Future Punishment, 587 
ARMSTRONG, Dr. Win., 609, 614 
ARNAULD, 100 

AR TICLES, XXXIX of Church of Eng- 
land, 103, 113, 125, 235, 337, 346, 
425, 541, 558, 589, 601, 630, 641, 
649 
Of Smaldcald, 102, 123, 558, 601, 
630 
A SC ENS ION of Christ. ( See Girist. ) 
ASSURANCE of Election possible, 228 

Of Faith, 477-479 
A THAN A SI AN Creed. (See Creeds. ) 
ATHANASIUS, 423 



6GQ 



INDEX. 



A THEISM, 46 
ATONEMENT, 401-425 

Its Nature, 401-415 

Terms defined, 401-403 

Active and Passive Obedience, 405 

Doctrine stated, 405, 406 

And proved, 406 

Its Necessity, 411 

Includes Active and Passive Obedi- 
ence, 412 

Its Perfection, 412-414 

Objections stated and answered, 
414, 415 

Its Design, 416-421 

Doctrine stated, 416, 417 

Arminian Doctrine, 417 

Of " Marrow Men," 417 

Of French School and of Baxter, 
418 

Keformed Doctrine of, proved, 418, 
419 

Objections stated and answered, 
419-421 

History of Theories which have 
prevailed, 421-423 

Mystical, Moral Influence, Gov- 
ernmental Theories, 422 

Satisfaction Theory, 423 

Classical and Confessional Author- 
ities, 423-425 
ATTRIBUTES, The Divine, 107, 129- 

163 
A VERROES, 52 

BAPTISM, 603-630 

Water the Symbol of Purification, 
603 

John's Baptism not Christian, 603, 
604 

The Baptism practised by the Dis- 
ciples before the Resurrection 
not this Sacrament, 604 

The Ordinance is of perpetual ob- 
ligation, 604, 605 

Defined as to its "matter" and 
"form," 605, 606, and as to its 
"design," 606, 607 

Emblematic Import of, 607-609 

The "MODE" of, 609-616 

Classical and Scriptural usage of 
/ScctctiZgd, 609, 610 

The position of Baptist Churches 
as to "Mode" stated, and that 
of all other Churches, 610, 611 

Baptist Doctrine as to the Emblem- 
atic Import of Baptism, 607-609, 
and of " Mode " of Baptism, 609- 
615 

The Command to Baptize is a com- 
mand to Wash to effect Purifica- 
tion, 611, 612 



BAPTISM [continued). 

The application of Grace symbol- 
ized by sprinkling and pouring, 
612 
Old Testament modes of purifica- 
tion, 613 
The Early Baptisms performed by 
John and the Apostles, 613-615 
Historical Usage, 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM, 616- 

625 
Infant Baptism grounded on the 
constitution of human nature, 616 
Visible Church, its nature and de- 
sign, 616-619 
The Church one under both Dis- 
pensations, 619-621 
Baptism takes the place of Cir- 
cumcision, 621 
Church membership of Children 
recognized by Christ and his 
Apostles, 621, 622 
Practice of Early Church, 622, 623 
Objections stated and answered, 

622-624 
Whose Children should be bap- 
tized? 624, 625 
The Efficacy of Baptism (Roman, 
Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Re- 
formed doctrines), 625-628 
Baptismal Regeneration, 627, 628 
The Necessity of Baptism (Rom- 
ish, Lutheran, and Reformed 
doctrine), 628, 629 
Authoritative Statements, 629, 630 
BAPTISMAL RE GENERA TION, 

627, 628 
BAPTISTS, 103, 609, 610 
BARCLA Y, Robert, 604 
BARNABAS, 569 
BARNES, Albert, 61 
BARROW, Dr. Isaac, 403 
BAUR, 58 

BAXTER, Richard, 106, 403, 418 
BEECHER, Dr. Edward, 351 
BELLARM1N, 305, 307, 336, 354, 449, 
451, 477, 479, 480, 510, 513, 524, 
525, 540, 546, 558, 591, 594, 600, 
629, 648 
BERNARD of Clairvaux, 424 
BERYL, 198 
BE VAN 634 
BEZA, 234. 355 

BICKERSTETH, Rev. E. H., 554 
BINGHAM, 615, 623 
BISSEL, E. Cone, 62 
BLUNT, 627 

BOARDMAN, Dr. Wm. E., 194 
BOLINGBROKE, 48 
BOSSUET, 51 
BOSTON, Thomas, 417 



INDEX. 



667 



BRENTZ, John, 384 
BRETSCHNELDER, 57 
BROWN, Dr. John, 417, 440 
BROWN, Dr., 570 
BRUCE, Dr. A. B.. 384, 389 
BRUNO, Giordano, 51 
BUCER. Martin, 640 
BUCHANAN, Dr. James, 47, 52 
BULL. Unigenitus, 449 
BULLLNGER, 640 
BUSHNELL, 422 
BUTLER, Bishop, 48 

CALLING, Effectual, 445^55 
External Call, 445, 446 
Internal Call proved, 446 
Yiews of different parties stated 

and compared, 447-449 
Reformed Doctrine of, explained 

and proved, 449-452 
Congruous to our nature, 452 
How conditioned upon the truth. 

453 
Arminian Doctrine of, 453 
Authoritative Statements of Church 

Doctrine, 454, 455 
CALVIN, 100, 102, 166, 333, 354, 417, 

439, 490, 507, 508, 599, 603, 624. 
629, 630, 640, 649 

CALVINISM, 109-111, 202 

Doctrine of original righteousness, 

302, 303, 307 
Doctrine of Design of the Atone- 
ment, 416, 419 
CAMBRIDGE, Platform, 127 
CAMERON, J., 231, 341 
CANDIISH, Dr. 423, 416 
CARL VLB, 48 

CARSON, Dr., A., 607, 609, 610 
CATHERINUS, A., 357, 362 
CA TEC HI SMS. 

Of Geneva, 592, 601, 630 
Heidelberg, 103, 113, 124, 421, 480, 

514, 540, 601, 640, 649 
Luther's Larger and Smaller, 102, 

123, 630 
Of Council of Trent, 119, 306, 321, 
456, 479, 480, 491, 492, 493, 499, 
504, 557, 558, 591, 594, 597, 599, 
600, 625, 629, 633, 635, 641 
Bacovian, 104, 308, 337, 347, 400, 

425, 503, 504, 514, 630 
Bussian of Philaret, 122 
Longer, of Eastern Church, 558 
Of Westminster Assembly, 103, 113, 
116, 200, 245, 258, 263, 307, 310, 
312, 316, 325, 356, 363, 371, 403, 

440, 451, 487, 516, 518, 521, 558, 
624, 632 

CERINTHUS, 103 

CHALCEDON, Creed of. (See Creeds. ) 



CHALMERS, Dr. Thos., 22, 61, 357 
CHA2\ CE, as the ultimate ground of 
the Evolution hypothesis shown 
to be absurd, 41 
CHANNING, Dr. Wm, 104 
CHARENTON Svnod of, 359 
CHEMNITZ, 363r384 
CHERUBIM, 249, 250 
CHLLLANLSM, 569-571 
CHRLST, His DLVLNLTY, 169-173 
CHRLST, PERSON of, 378-390 
Prophecies of Advent, 378-380 
Doctrine stated, 380 
And proved, 380, 381 
Effects of union upon human na- 
ture, 382, 383 
Lutheran Doctrine of " Communi- 

catio Idiomatum," 384, 385 
Heretical Opinions stated, 386-388 
Doctrine of Kenosis, 388, 389 
Authoritative Church Statements, 
389, 390 
CHRIST, MEDIATORIAL OLEIC E 
of, 391-400 
The Christian Ministry not a Priest- 
hood. 398, 399 
The Priesthood of Believers, 399 
Authoritative Church Statements, 
399, 400 

christ; intercession of. 426, 

427 
CHRIST, MEDIATORIAL KING- 
SHIP of, 428-444 

Different aspects of, 428 

Subjects of, 429 

When assumed by him, 429 

Usage of phrases, "kingdom of 
God," "kingdom of heaven," 
etc., 429, 430 

Its nature and administration. 430, 
431 

Bomish Doctrine of the relation of 
Church and State, 432, 433 

Erastian view of same, 433 

Doctrine of Beformed Churches, 
433 

Design of Church and of State, 433 

American law on subject, 434-436 

Belative jurisdiction of Sessions 
and Trustees, 437 
CHRIST, His ESTATE of HU MIL- 
LA TION, 440-443 

The Descent in Hell, 439 
CHRIST, His EST A TE of EXAL TA- 
TLON 440-443 

His resurrection, 441, 442 

His ascension, 442 

His sitting at the right hand of 
God, 443 

Authoritative Church Statements, 
443, 444 



068 



INDEX. 



CHRIST, Union of belie vers with, 482- 
486 
Its nature, 482, 483 
Ground, 484 
Consequences, 484, 485 
Communion of Saints, 485 
CHRISTIAN Religion what? 15 
CHRISTIANITY, Evidences of, 19 
CHRIS TRIER, Dr., 61 
CHRISTOLOGY, 101, 106, 109 
CHURCH, Its idea, constitution, offi- 
cers, etc., 24, 25 
Eomish Doctrine of Infallibility of, 
stated, 87, 88; and shown to be 
baseless, 88, 89 
One under both Dispensations, 

619-621 
Visible 616-619 
CHURCH and STA TE, 432-438 
CHURCH of England and Episcopal 
Church in U. S. A., Doctrine of 
as to the ' 'Descent into Hell, ' ' 439 
CLARKE, Dr. Sam., 46 
CLARKE, 47 

CLEMENTINE Homilies, 103 
CLERK-MAXWELL, Prof. J., 24, 34 
COCCEJUS, 362, 425 
CCELESTIUS, 96 
COLERIDGE, S. T., 58, 63 
COMMUNION of saints, 485 
COMMUNICA TIO IDIOMA TUM, 

382, 384 
COMPARA TIVE RELIGION, Science 

of, IS 
COMPA RA TIVE PHIL OLOGY, 18 
COMPARISON of SYSTEMS, 94-111 
CON ANT, Dr., 609 
CONDITIONAL UNIVERSALISM, 

418 
CONFERENCE, Leipsic, 100 
CONCOMITANCE, Eoman doctrine 

of, 637, 647 
CONFESSIONS. 

Augsburgh, 101, 102, 103, 113, 122, 
123, 346, 490, 576, 600, 601, 628, 
640, 648 
Basle, 640 

Belgic, 80, 103, 337, 576, 640, 649 
Gallic, 103, 337, 354, 599, 640, 643, 

649 
English of Edward VI., 576 
Helvetic I., 640 
Helvetic II., 80, 103, 113, 124, 346, 

354, 390, 399, 400, 541, 643 
Scotch, 103, 113, 592, 640, 643, 644 
Of the Eemonstrants, 454, 543 
Of Orthodox Greek Church, 122, 

424 
Tetrapolitana, 124, 640 
Westminster, 81, 126, 182, 200, 
233, 244, 245, 258, 263, 307, 310, 



CONFESSIONS {continued). 

312, 316, 325, 347, 356, 363, 371, 
390, 403, 416, 417, 424, 454, 480, 
485, 487, 514, 521, 541, 542, 548, 
552, 569, 576, 589, 591, 592, 599, 
602, 605, 624, 626, 629, 630, 635, 
643, 644, 650 
CONSCIENCE, 282-285 
CONSENSUS Genevensis, 127 

Tigurinus, 127, 640, 641, 650, and 
in Appendix. 
CONSTABLE, Eev. Henry, 583 
COSMOLOGICAL Argument. (See 

God.) 
COUNCILS. 

Carthage, 96 

Chalcedon, 95, 385, 387, 388, 464 

Constantinople I., 95, 174, 191, 
387, 388 

Constantinople VI., 95 

Ephesus, 95, 96, 385, 387 

LateranlV, 637 

Milevum, 96 

Nice, 95, 115, 166, 173, 191, 385 

Toledo, 95, 191 

Trent, Decrees of, 80, 92, 119, 336, 
346, 354, 399, 413, 424, 443, 449, 
451, 456, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 
495, 499, 510, 511, 513, 527, 530, 
531, 539, 540, 543, 546, 557, 589, 
591, 592, 594, 599, 600, 603, 635, 
640, 641, 644, 646, 647, 648 

Vatican, Decrees of, 80, 92, 93, 121, 
432 
COUSIN, 52, 104 
COVENANT of Works, 309-314 

Different sense of Word, 309 

Doctrine defined, 309-312 

And proved, 309-311 

Parties and Conditions of, 311, 312 

Adam represented the race, 311 

Nature of the death threatened, 
312, 313 

The seal of the Covenant, 313 

In what sense still in force, 314 
COVENANT of Grace, 367-377 

Usage of word Berlth 3116.610.877x77, 
367-369 

Different views held by Calvinists, 
369, 370 

How is Christ Mediator of, 372, 
373 

Arminian view of, 374 

How faith a condition of, 374 

History of its administration, 375- 
377 
CREA TION of the World, 237-248 

Doctrine of Absolute, 237, 238 

CREA TIO PRIMA and SEC UN- 
DA, 238, 239 

Doctrine proved, 239-242 



INDEX. 



669 



CREA TION (continued}. 

Chief end the glory of God, 243- 
245 

The Mosaic record of and Science, 
245-248 
CREATION and Original State of 

Man, 296-308 
CREA TIONISM, 351, 352 
CREEDS, Apostles', 113, 115 

Athanasian, 113, 117, 118, 182 

Chalcedon, 118, 119 

Of Pope Pins IV., 119-121 
CREEDS and CONEESSIONS, 112- 
128 

Why necessary, 112 

How produced, 112, 113 

Uses of, 114 

Authority of, 114 
CREILIUS. J., 104 
CRISP, Dr. Tobias, 404 
CRITICISM, the Higher, 20 

Textual, 20 
CUNNINGHAM, Dr. Wm., 99, 125, 

216, 218, 349, 357, 402 
CURCELLAUS, 105, 413 
CYPRIAN, 623 
CYRIL, 387 

DABNEY, Dr. Eobert L.. 366 
DALE, Dr. James W., 609 
DANA US, L., 355 
DARWIN, Charles, 39, 47 
DEA TH and the State of the Soul after 
Death, 548-558 

Death defined, 548 

How related to sin ? 548 

Why the justified die, 549 

Immortality of soul, 549-552 

Old Testament doctrine of, 551, 
552 

Intermediate state, 552-558 

New Testament doctrine of, 552 

Biblical usage of Sheol, 551 

Hades, 553 

Paradise, 553, and Gehenna, 553 

Anglican view of, 554 

Romish view of, 556-558 

Doctrine of Soul, Sleep, or Anni- 
hilation, 554, 555 

Refuted, 555 

No second probation, 555, 556 
DECREES of God, 200-213 

Difficulties involved, 201 

Arminian view of, 202, 207 

Calvinistic doctrine of, stated, 202, 
203 

One purpose, 203 

Eternal, 203 

Doctrine proved, 205, 206 

Sovereign, 206 

Unconditioned, 207, 208 



DECREES (continued). 

How far efficacious and how far 
permissive, 208 

Not same as heathen doctrine of 
fate, 209 

Consistent with free agency of 
man, 209, 210 

With the holiness of God, 210, 211 

With the use of means, 212 

Practical effects of this doctrine, 
213 

Order of decrees, 230-234 
DEISM, 48 
DE MOOR, 352 

DES CARTES, 46, 63, 260, 270 
DEMONIA CAL POSSESSION. (See 

Angels. ) 
DENS, 593, 625, 641 
DESCENT into Hell, 439 
DESIGN, Argument from. (See God. ) 
DICK, Dr. John, 372 
DOCTRINE HISTORY, 23 
DOCTRINAL STANDARDS. 

Of Church of Rome, 119-121 

Of Greek, 121, 122 

Of Lutheran Church, 122-124 

Of Reformed Churches, 124-128 
DOLLINGER, 52 
DOMINICANS, 99, 100 
DONA NATURALIA and Supernat- 

uralia, 305, 306 
DORNER, Dr. J. A., 48, 358, 362, 517 
DUALISM, 47 
D WIGHT, 423 

EBIONITES, 196, 386 
EBRARD, Dr. 388 
ECCLESIOLOGY, 23, 107, 108 
EDWARDS, Jonathan, 51, 260, 289, 
303, 320, 326, 341, 360, 458, 462 
EFFECTUAL Calling. (See Calling. ) 
EGLIN, Raphael, 362 
EICHORN, 48, 57 

EMMONS, Dr., 270, 423, 457, 508, 521 
ENCYCLOPAEDIA, 15 
EPISCOPALIANS, 103 
EPISCOPIUS, 105, 531 
ERASTUS, 433 
ERASTIANISM, 433 
ERSKINE, Ebenezer, 61, 417 
ERSKINE, Ralph, 417 
ESCHATOLOGY, 23, 107, 548 
ETHICS, Christian, 23 
ETHNOLOGY, 18 
EUCHARIST, 102 
EUSEBIUS of Csesarea, 27, 197 
EUSEBIUS of Nicomedia, 197 
EUTYCHES, 386, 387 
EUTYCHIANISM. 387 
EVIDENCES of Christianity, 19 
EVOLUTION, theories of, 39, 40 



670 



INDEX. 



EXALTATION, Estate of. (See 

Christ.) 
EXEGESIS, 21 
EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY, 20 

FABER, Stanley, 216 
FAIRBAIRN, Dr. Patrick, 250, 398, 

573, 578, 610 
FAITH, 465-481 

Defined, 465, 466 
Faith and knowledge, 467-469 
Romish distinction of "Implicit" 
and "Explicit" faith, 467, 468 
Grounds of faith, 470 
Temporary and living, 471 
How related to trust, 472 
Doctrine proved, 473 
"Fides informis" and "fides for- 

mata," 474 
Articles of faith and matters of 

opinion, 475 
' ' Fides specialis ' ' and its object, 476 
Eelation of Faith and Assurance, 

477-479 
Faith leads to works, 479 
Authoritative Statements, 479-481 
Relation to Justification, 503, 504 
FARRAR, A. S., 61 
FARRAR, F. W., 48, 58, 61, 104 
FEDERAL THEOLOGY, 362-366 
FEUERBACH, 51 
FICHTE, 57, 63 
FINNEY, Prof, 534 
FISHER, Dr. G. P., 62, 357, 361 
FLETCHER, 377 
FLATT, 423 

FLLNT, Prof. Robert, 32, 38, 46, 47 
FORE ORDINATION how far distin- 
guished from foreknowledge and 
how far equivalent, 203 
FORMULA CONCORDIM, 80, 100, 
123, 235, 301, 336, 337, 346, 354, 
389, 390, 424, 443, 448, 454, 464, 
513, 540, 546, 635, 648 
FORMULA CONSENSUS HEL- 
VETICA, 127, 128, 346, 356, 
425, and Appendix 
FRANCISCANS, 99 
FREDERICK the Great, 57 
FREE AGENCY, 280-295 
Will defined, 282 
Distinction between liberty and 

ability, 288, 289 
Motives defined, 290 
Consistent with certainty, 291 
False theories of contingency, 291- 

293 
Arminian View inconsistent with 
gospel, 294, 295 
FREE WILL, 97 
FERGUSON 58 



GERHARD, John, 166, 235, 241 

GESS, Dr. W. F., 388, 389 

GLBBON, 218 

GLADSTONE, Hon. Wm. E., 433 

GOD, His existence, 29-52 
Origin of idea of, 29 
Nominal definition of, 29 
Real definition, 29, 30 
Idea, how far due to tradition? 

30 
In what sense innate ? and in what 

sense intuitive, 30, 31 
Formal arguments for existence of, 
their value and classification, 32 
Cosmological Argument, 33 
Objections to and answer, 33, 34 
Teleological Argument, in two 

forms, 35, 36 
Objections to and answers, 37-40 
Moral Argument stated, 41 
Objections and answers, 42, 43 
Scriptural Argument, 44, 45 
A priori Argument, 45, 46 
Anti-Theistic theories, 46-52 

GOD, his Attributes, 107, 109, 129-163 
Method of determining them, 129 
Objective reality of our knowledge 

of, 129-131 
Names of, their etymology and 

meaning, 134, 135 
The nature of these attributes, 135, 
136, and their classification, 137, 
138 
His Simplicity, 136 
Unity, 138, 168, 169 
Spirituality, 139, 140 
Relation to space, 140, 141 
Relation to time, 142, 143 
Immutability, 143, 144 
Infinite Intelligence, 144-148 
Wisdom, 148, 149 
Infinite power, 149, 150 
Will, 150, 153 
Absolute Justice, 153-158 
Goodness, 158-161 
Truth, 161, 162 
Sovereignty, 162 
Holiness, 163 

GOD, Decrees of. (See Decrees.) 

GOD, his acts classified, 200 

Not the author of sin, 211, 212 

G OMAR US, 232, 349 

Governmental theory of Atone- 
ment, 422 

GNOSTICS, 47, 193 

GRACE, 97 

GREEK Church, Doctrine of, as to 
sin, 334, 335 
As to Grace, 454 
As to Intermediate State, 558 
As to Mode of Baptism, 615 



INDEX. 



671 



GREEN, Dr. fm. H., 297 
GREGORY, the Great, 423 
GROTIUS, 105, 156, 413, 423 

HAGENBACH, 58, 164, 197, 198, 387, 

388, 590 
HALES, 297 
HAMILTON, Sir Wm., 49, 130, 133, 

282, 292, 305, 
HARE, Julius C., 405 
HARD WICK, 47 
HARVEY, Review of N. W. Taylor, 

332 
HASE, 423, 448 
HAVEN, Prof., 319 
#£,4 VEN and Hell, 577-587 

Heaven, 577-580 

Scriptural Terms, 577, 578 

A place, 578 

A condition, 578, 580 

The State of the Keprobate, 580- 
587 

Scriptural Terms, 580 

The nature of future punishment, 
580, 581 

It is endless, 581-583 

Objections stated and refuted, 584- 
587 

Theory of Annihilation or Con- 
ditional Immortality, 583 

Theory of Restoration, 583, 584 
HEGEL, 51, 57, 63 
HEIDEGGER, J. H., 127 
HELL. (See Heaven and Bell.) 
HERBERT of Cherbury, 48 
HERMENEUTICS, 21 
HERMES, 569 
HERSCHELL, Sir John, 241 
HETHERINGTON, 61 
HILARY, 94 

HLLDEBERT of Tours, 637 
HILL, 170, 185 

HISTORICAL THEOLOGY, 26, 27 
HISTORY, Biblical, 26 

Ecclesiastical, 26 

Sources of, 27 

Of Doctrine, 28 
HOBBES, 48 

HODGE, Dr. Charles, 137, 159, 181, 
230, 262, 272, 317, 344, 377, 420, 
441, 442, 446, 459, 468, 469, 560, 
567, 587 
HOFFMAN, Dr., 388 
HOGG, James, 417 

HOLY GHOST, His divinity and per- 
sonality, 173-176 
HOPKINS, Dr., 61, 351, 353 
HORNE'S Introduction, 177 
HUDSON, C. F., 313, 554, 583 
HUMANITARIANS, 195 
HUME, David, 37 



HUMILIATION, Estate of. (See 

Christ ) 
HURST, 48, 57, 58 
HUTTER, 363 
HUXLEY, 40 
HYPERIUS, 362 

IDEALISM, 48, 49 
INDULGENCES, 493 
LMMORTALLTY of the soul, 549-552 
IMPUTATION of Adam's first sin, 
348-366 

Imputation defined, 357, 358 

Mediate, 358 

Of our sins to Christ, 407, 408 

Of Christ's righteousness to us, 
501, 502 
INABILITY, 338-347 

Pelagian view of, 338 

Semipelagian, 338 

Augustinian, 339 

Distinction of "Liberty" and 
"Ability," 339 

Doctrine stated, 339, 340 

Distinction of "Moral" and "Nat- 
ural" Ability, 341, 342 

Doctrine proved, 340-343 

Objections stated and answered, 
343-345 

Authoritative Church Statements, 
346, 347 
INDEPENDENT CHURCHES, 103 
INFINITE, The, 130, 133 
INFRA-LA PSA RLANLSM, 231 
INNOCENT III., 637 
INNER LIGHT, 55 
INSPIRA TION, 21, 65, 81 

Necessary presuppositions, 65 

Church doctrine of, 66 

Plenary what ? 66 

Verbal what ? 66 

Doctrine proved, 67 

God's Providential agency therein, 
67 

Nature and extent of Inspiration 
defined, 68 

How differs from revelation ? 68 

From spiritual illumination, 68 

Proof of Church doctrine of, 69-74 

Objections stated and answered, 
74-77 

Defective statements of, 78 

False doctrines of, 78, 79 

Authoritative Creed statements of, 
80, 81 
INTERCESSION of Christ, 626, 427 
INTERPRETATION, History of, 21 

Prophetical, 22 
INTRODUCTION, general, 20 

Special, 21 
IRENES US, 421, 569, 623 



672 



INDEX. 



JACOB I, 51 

JAMBLICUS, 51 

JANSENIUS, 99 

JANSENISTS, 100, 449 

JESUITS, 99, 271 

JE WS, future Conversion and Bestora- 

tion of, 571-573 
JOHN Ascusnages, 197 
JOHN Philoponus, 197 
JOSEPHUS, 297 
JOWETT, Prof., 58, 422 
JULIAN, 96 

JUDGMENT, final, 573-576 
JUSTIFICA TION, 496-514 

New Testament usage of diHaioco, 

etc., 496, 497 
Doctrine defined and proved, 498- 

502 
Not grounded on works, 498, 499 
But upon the righteousness, active 

and passive, of Christ, 500 
Imputation of righteousness proved 

501, 502 
Relation of Faith to, 503, 504 
Specific object of justifying faith, 

504 
Its effects, 505 
Objections stated and answered, 

505 
Erroneous views of, 505-512 
Piscator's view, 506 
As modified by Governmental the- 
ory of the Atonement, 508, and 
by the Arminian theory, 508, 509 
Calvin vindicated, 507, 508 
Eomish doctrine of Justification 

stated and refuted, 509-512 
Authoritative Church statements, 
513, 514 

KAHNIS, 58 

KANT, 63 

KINGSHIP of Christ. (See Christ.) 

KITTO, 249, 578, 580 

KNOX, John, 640 

KRAUT H, Dr., C. P., 49, 123, 362, 

595, 626, 629, 634, 643 
KURTZ, 27 

LAMPE, 352 

LEA THE S, Stanley, 61 

LE CLERC, 105 

LEIBNITZ, 63, 244 

LEIPSIC Conference, 448 

LELAND, 48 

LEO the Great, 388 

LESSING, 48 

LIMBORCH, 105, 307, 337, 347, 353, 

413, 425, 447, 503, 509, 514, 587, 

602 
LOCKE, John, 63 



LORD'S SUPPER, 631-650 

Its institution and perpetual obli- 
gation, 631 

Scriptural and Ecclesiastical desig- 
nations, 631, 632 

Kind of bread and wine to be used, 
633, 634 

The breaking of bread, 634 

Distribution of elements essential, 
635, 636 

Proper manner of conducting ser- 
vices, 636 

Eelation of the sign to the grace 
signified, 636-641 

Eomish view of (Transubstantia- 
tion) stated and refuted, 636, 639 

Doctrine of "Concomitance," 637 

Eeasons for withholding the cup, 
637 

Lutheran view of the presence of 
Christ in, 639 

The Eeformed view of same, 639- 
641 

Efficacy of, 641-647 

Eomish Doctrine of same as a Sac- 
rament and as a Sacrifice (Mass) 
stated and refuted, 641, 642 

Lutheran view of same, 642, 643 

Zwinglian view of, 643 

Eeformed view of, 643 

Qualification for admission to, 644- 
646 

Authoritative Statements, 646-650 
LOYOLA Ignatius, 99 
LUTHER, 100, 102, 354, 384, 404, 405, 

444, 625, 626, 639 
LUTHERAN Churches, 102 
L UTHERANISM, 100-102, 122, 123, 271 

Of Original Sin, 336, 337 

Of Predestination, 234, 235 

Of Original Eighteousness, 307 

Of Inability, 346 

Of Person of Christ, 384, 389, 390 

Of the "Descent into Hell," 439, 
443, 444 

Of Effectual Calling, 447 

Of Eegeneration, 464 

Of Justification, 513 

Of Perseverance, 546 

Of Efficacy of Sacraments, 595, 600, 
601 

Of Necessity of Baptism, 625, 629 

Of Christ's presence in the Eucha- 
rist, 639, 648, 649 

Of Efficacy of same, 64, 643, 648, 
649 

M'CLINTOCK, Dr. John, 26, 27, 28, 

494 
M'COSH, Dr. James, 142, 283, 286, 315 
MACEDONIUS, 174 



INDEX. 



673 



MA HAN, Prof., 534 
MALEBRAXCHE, 260 
MAN, his CREATION, and ORIG- 
INAL STATE, 296-308 

Immediately created by God, 296 

His antiquity, 297, 298 

Unity of race proved, 298, 299 

Trichotomy disproved, 299, 300 

Created righteous, 300, 301 

Pelagian view of original right- 
eousness, 302, 304 

Arminian, 302 

Responsibility for innate disposi- 
tions, 302-305 

Distinction .between the image and 
likeness of God, 305 

Romish doctrine of the original 
state of man, 305, 306 

Authoritative Statements, 306-308 
MANES, 47, 350 
MANNING, Cardinal, 93, 432 
MANSEL, 130, 133 
MARBURG, Colloquy, 640 
MARROW men, 411 
MARTENSEN, 388 
MA R TINE A U, James, 104 
MARTYR, Justin, 623 
MARTYR, Peter, 355 
MASON, Dr. John M., 621 
MASS, doctrine of, 632, 641, 647, 648 | 
MATERIALISM, modern, involves 
old doctrine of Chance, 41, 49, 
50, 52 
MA TTER not eternal, 241, 242 
MA URICE, 58, 442, 448 
MAX MULLER, 48 
MEDIATION THEOLOGY, 57 
MEDIATORIAL Office of Christ. 

(See Christ.) 
MELANCHTHON, 100, 354, 362, 448, 

639, 640 
MERIT, Eomish doctrine of, merit of 
congruity and of condignity, 527 

True view of, 527, 528 
METHODISTS, Wesleyan, 103, 105 

Articles of religion of, 126 
METHODOLOGY, 15 
MILL, James, 43 
MILL, J. S„ 33, 34, 43, 47, 276 
MILLER, Hugh, 331, 364 
MILLENNIUM, Scriptural doctrine 

of, 568, 569 
MIRACLES, 274-279 

Possible, 275, 276 

How consistent with divine per- 
fections, 277, 278 

How recognizable, 278^, 279 
MOEHLER, 306 
MOLINA, Lewis, 99, 147 
MOLINISTS, 99, 100 
MONARCHIANS, 174, 197, 198 



MONOPHYSITES, 387 

MONO THELITES, 388 

MORAL Argument. (See God. ) 

MORAL accountability, ultimate seat 
of, 293, 294 

MORAL Influence Theory of Atone- 
ment, 422 

MOORE, Dr. "Wm. E., 436, 598, 625, 
636 

MOSHEIM, 164, 506 

MULLER, Julius, 351 

MYCONIUS, Oswald, 640 

MYSTICAL theory of Atonement, 422 

NATURAL THEOLOGY, 19 
NEANDER, Augustus, 27, 47, 174, 

197, 305, 387, 421, 615 
NEO-PLATONISTS, 51, 63 
NESTORIUS, 387 
NESTORIAN, Heresv, 387 
NEWMAN, J. H., 625 
NEWTON, Sir Isaac, 142 
NIC EXE Creed. (See Creed.) 
XICOLE, 100 

NIEMEYER, Dr. H. A., 128 
NOETUS, 198 
NEW HAVEN doctrine of Original 

Sin, 335 

O BERLIN doctrine of Perfection, 533- 

536 
OCHINO, 104 
O LEVI ANUS, 362 
ORIGEN, 197, 198, 421, 423. 555, 623 
OSIANDER, 422 
OUTRAM, 409, 421 
OWEN, Dr. J., 362 

PAINE,. Thos., 48 

TALLY, 61 

PANTHEISM, 50 

PA PI AS, 569 

PA REUS, D., 351 

PARK, Prof. Ed. A., 154, 423 

PARKER, Theodore, 48, 58 

PARSONS, Dr. Theophilus, 565 

PASCAL, 51, 100 

PATRIPASSIANS, 174 

PA UL of Samosata, 103 

PA UL, Father, 357 

PAUL US, 48, 57 

PEARSON, Bishop, 61, 439 

PECK, Dr. George, 531, 532, 533, 534, 

535, 537 
PELAG1US, 96, 623 
PELAGIANISM compared with Au- 

gustinianism, 96, 97 
Doctrine of Original righteousness, 

302, 304 
Of sin, 320 
Of original sin, 330, 331, 334 



674 



INDEX. 



PELAGIANISM, Doc. (continued.) 

Of inability, 338 

Of effectual calling, 447 

Of regeneration, 456 

Of perfection, 529 
PENANCE. (See Repentance.) 
PERFECTIONISM, 21. (See Sandi- 

fication. ) 
PERKINS, Dr. Justin, 634 
PERSE VERANCE of the Saints, 542- 
547 

Doctrine stated and proved, 542, 
543 

Objections stated and answered, 
543-547 

Komish view of, 543, 546 

Arminian, 543 - 

Lutberan, 546 

Authoritative Statements, 546, 547, 
PHILOIOGY, Biblical, 20 
PHILOSOPHY, 18 

Its relation to Theology, 63 
PIGHIUS, Albertus, 357 
PISCA TOR, 415, 506 
PHIS IX., Pope, 432 
PLAC^EUS, Joshua, 358, 359 
PLOTINUS, 51 
POLEMICS, 23 
POL YTHEISM, 47 
POPE Innocent, 96 

Zosimus, 96 

Innocent X., 100 

Alexander II., 100 

Clement XI., 100 

Leo X., 495 
POPE, Infallibility and Authority of, 

92, 93 
PORPHYRY, 51 
PRACTICAL THEOLOGY, 24 
PR AXE AS, 198 
PREDESTINATION, 98, 214-336 

Different senses of word, 214 

Theory of "National Election," 
215 

Theory of ' ' Ecclesiastical Individ- 
ualism," 216 

Arminian doctrine of, 216 

Calvinistic doctrine of, 218 

Not founded on works, 220, but on 
the sovereign will of God, 220 

Doctrine proved, 218-223 

Objections stated and answered, 
223-229 
PREMILLENNIAL Advent Theory, 

569-571 
PRESBYTERIAN Churches, 103, 104 
PRESSENSE, Dr. Edward, 47, 103 
PRIESTLEY, 104 
PRIVATE JUDGMENT, 91 
PROFESSIO FIDEI TRIDEN- 
TINJS, 92 



PROVIDENCE, 258-279 

Preservation, 258 

Deistical View, 259 

Theory of continued creation, 260, 
261 

True doctrine of preservation sta- 
ted, 261 

Scripture doctrine of Providential 
Government stated, 262, and 
proved, 263 266 

Special providence, 266 

Extends to free and to sinful acts, 
267, 268 

Mechanical theory of, 269, 270 

Theory of occasional causes, 270, 
271 

Theories of concursus, 271-273 

Characteristics set forth in Script- 
ure, 273, 274 

Extraordinary providences and mir- 
acles, 274-279 
PSYCHOLOGY, 18 
PUNISHMENT, Future, Endless, 

580-587 
PURGATORY, 556-558 
PUSEY, Dr., 503 

QUENSTEDT, Andrew, 239, 355, 360, 

629 
QUESNEL, 100, 449 

RAD BERT, Pascasius, 637 

RATIONALISM, 55, 57 

RA TIONALLSTS, 174 

RATRAMNUS, 637 

RA WLINSON, 61 

REALISM, 361-364 

REASON, different senses of, 56 

Not ultimate ground of religious 
truth, 58, 59 
REDEMPTION, 98 
REFORMED Churches, 102, 103 
REFORMED doctrine, 103, 271, 272 

Of Person of Christ, 390, etc., etc. 
REGENERATION, 456-464 

Erroneous Yiews, 456-458 

True view stated and proved, 458- 
461 

Distinguished from Conversion, 
460 

Absolute necessity of, 463 

Authoritative Statements, 464, 494, 
495 
REID. 63, 292 
REIMARUS, 48, 57 
RELIGION, what? 15 
REMONSTRANCE, 105 
REMONSTRANTS, 105, 271 
REMONSTRANT Doctrine of Pre- 
destination, 236 

Of original righteousness, 307 



INDEX. 



675 



REMONSTRANT Doc. {continued.') 
Of original sin, 337 
Of Inability, 347 
Confession of, 353 
Of Atonement, 425 
Of Efficacy of Sacraments, 595, 596, 
602 
RENAN, 58 

REPENTANCE AND ROMISH 
DOCTRINE OE PENANCE, 
487-495 
A gift of God, 487 
Its fruits, 488 
Includes apprehension of God in 

Christ, 488 
Its evidences, 489 
Komish doctrine of Penance, 490 
Statement, 490 
Of Confession, 491 
Of Absolution, 492 
Refutation of Eomish doctrine, 

492, 493 
Doctrine of Indulgences, 493 
Authoritative statements, 494, 495 
RESURRECTION of Christ. (See 

Christ.) 
RESURRECTION, 559-565 

Simultaneous and general, 560, 565 
Christ's resurrection, 560, 561 
Scientific objections stated and an- 
swered, 561, 563 
Conditions of Personal Identity, 

563 
Doctrine of the Jews, 564 
Heretical views. 564, 565 
REVEIATION supernatural, neces- 
sary, possible, and probable, 59- 
61 
Its nature, 68 
RIDGE LY, Dr. T., 352 
RITSCHL, 423 
RITTER, 52 

ROBERTSON, Eev. Andrew, 418 
ROBINSON, Dr. Ed., 408, 445, 465, 

554 
RODGERS, Judge, Supreme Court of 

Penna., 435 
ROGERS, Henry, 61 
ROMAN CATHOLIC Doctrine. Of 
authority and infallibility of the 
Pope, 92, 93 
Of sin, 321 

Original sin, 335, 336, 337 
Of inability, 346 
Of Christian priesthood, 399 
Of Christ's "descent into hell," 

439, 443 
Of grace, 454 
Of regeneration, 490-495 
Of faith, 472, 474, 476 
Of justification, 491, 499, 509 



ROMAN CA THOLIC Doc. {continued. ) 

Of counsels, 525, 540 

Of merit of condignity and of con- 
gruity, 527 

Of perfection, 530-536 

Of perseverance, 543, 546 

Of purgatory, and the intermediate 
state, 556-558 

Of sacraments, 590-600 

Their efficacy, 596, 597 

Of efficacy, and necessity of bap- 
tism, 625-630 

Of transubstantiation, 634-639, 646- 
648 

Doctrine of the Mass, 641, 646-648 
ROW, 61 

RULE OF FAITH and PRACTICE, 
82-93 

Protestant Doctrine of, 55, 82 

Eoman Catholic Doctrine of, 82, 83 

SABELLIUS, 198 
SACRAMENTS, 588-602 

Etymology and usage of the word, 
588, 589 

Definition of, 589, 590 

Relation of sign to grace signified, 
591, 592 

Eomish Doctrine of Efficacy of, 
592-595 

Protestant Doctrine of same, 595- 
597 

Necessity of, 597, 598 

Validity of, 598, 599 

Authentic Statements, 599 - 602. 
(See Baptism and Lord's Sup- 
per.) 
SAISSET, 52 
SAMPSON, 165 
SANCTIFICATION, 520-541 

Different views of, 520, 521 

Doctrine defined, 521, 522 

Agency of the truth in, 523 

Agency of the sacraments in, 524 

And of Faith, 524 

Good works, their nature and ne- 
cessity, 525, 526 

Eomish Doctrine of Precepts and 
Counsels, 525 

Antinomian view of, 526 

Merit of condignity, and merit of 
congruity, 527 

True view of merit, 527, 528 

Perfect sanctification, 529-541 

Pelagian theory of, stated, 529, and 
refuted, 534-539 

Eomish theory of, stated, 530, 531, 
and refuted, 534-539 

Arminian theory of, stated, 531-533, 
and refuted, 534-539 

Authoritative Statements, 539-541 



676 



INDEX. 



SANDEMANIANS, 472 
SATAN. (See Angels.) 
SA VO Y DECLARA TION, 126 
SCHAFF, Dr. Philip, 27, 58, 112, 115, 
117, 124, 128, 361, 364, 423, 615, 
634 
SCHELLING, 51, 57, 63 
SCHLEIERMACHER, 51, 54, 422 
SCHOOLMEN, theology of, 99 
SCHWENKFELD, 422 
SCIENCE and Eevelation, 246-248 
SCIENCES, physical, 19 
"SCIENTIA MEDIA," 99, 147 
SCOTUS, Erigena, 51, 422 
SCOT US, John Duns, 99, 412 
SCRIPTURES, Inspiration of, 65-81 
OnJy infallible rule of faith and 

practice, 84 
Complete, 84, 85 
Perspicuous, 85, 86 
Accessible, 86 

Judge of Controversy, 86, 89-91 
Do not derive authority from the 

Church, 90 
Nor to be. authoritatively inter- 
preted by the Church, 90 
Eomish Doctrine of the Interpre- 
tation of, 92 
SECOND ADVENT AND GEN- 
ERAL JUDGMENT, 566-576 
New Testament usage of the words, 

566 
A literal Advent still future, 566, 

567 
Various interpretations of Matthew 

xxiv. and xxv., 567 
The Apostles did not teach that the 
coming would be immediate, 568 
Millennium, Scriptural Doctrine 

of, 568, 569 
The Premillennial theory stated 

and refuted, 569, 570 
The interpretation of Eevelation 

xx. 1-10, 570, 571 
The future Conversion and Eesto- 

ration of the Jews, 571, 572 
The final judgment, 573-576 
The Judge and the subjects of judg- 
ment, 573 
How the Saints will judge the 

world, 574 
The Principles of the Judgment, 

574 
The final Conflagration of the 

world, 575 
Authoritative Statements, 576 
SEMIARIANS, 167, 197 
SEMIPELAGIANISM, 96, 98, 99, 
334 
Doctrine of Inability, 338 
Of Effectual Calling, 447 



SEMLER, 57 

SERVE TUS, 104 

SHAFTESBURY, 48 

SHEDD, Eev. J. H., 634 

SHEDD, Dr. Wm. G. T., 116, 196, 198, 

362, 364, 365, 423 
SIN, Its nature, 315-321 
Its tests, 315 
Its definition, 315 
"Want of conformity to law, 316, 317 
Predicable of permanent states as 

well as of acts, 318, 319 
Concupiscence sinful, 319 
The Origin of sin, 317-322 
Pelagian Doctrine of, 320 
In what sense always voluntary, 320 
SIN of Adam, 321-324 

Its effect on himself, 323 
Upon his posterity, 324 
SIN, original, 97, 325-337 
Doctrine of, defined, 325 
It does not involve corruption of 

substance, 326 
It is truly sin, 327 
Not simply loss of original right- 
eousness, 327 
It affects the entire man, 327, 328 
In what sense " total " ? 328, 329 
Doctrine proved, 329, 333 
Sin against the Holy Ghost, 333 
Pelagian and Semipelagian Doc- 
trine of, 333, 334 
New Haven Doctrine of, 335 
Authoritative Church Statements 
of, 336, 337 
SIN, The IMPUTATION of Adam's 
first, 348-366 
The difficulty lies in the Facts, 

348, 349 
Self-evident principles to be re- 
membered, 349 
Two questions to be kept distinct, 

the How ? and the Why ? 350 
Theories of the origination which 
ignore its Adamic origin, 350, 351 
Different views as to the propaga- 
tion of sin, 351, 352 
The Arminian explanation of the 
justice of ante-natal forfeiture, 
352 
The New England view of same, 

353 
The Church view of same, 353 
The general consensus of the 

Churches shown, 354-357 
Imputation defined, 357, 358 
Mediate Imputation, 358-360 
The Church Doctrine proved, 360 
Ground of the imputation, 361-366 
The Augustinian view, 361-364 
The Federal view, 362-366 



INDEX. 



677 



SMALLEY, 423 
SMITH, Dr. Henry B., 403 
SMITH, Dr. Robertson, 58 
SOCINUS, Faustus, 104, 174, 334, 414, 

415 
SOCINIANS, 96, 103, 194, 271, 386 
SOCINIANISM, 96, 106, 107, 202, 206, 

334, 347 
Doctrine of the Priesthood of 

Chrisc, 400 
Of the Atonement, 414, 415, 422 
Of Justifying Faith, 503, 504 
Of Justification, 514 
Of the Efficacy of Baptism, etc., 

630 
SOTERIOLOGY, 23, 96, 106, 108, 

110 
SPENCER, Herbert, 47 
SPINOZA, 51, 260, 270 
STANIEY, Dean Edward, 58 
STATISTICS, 19 
STAUDLIN, 423 
STEWART, Prof. B., 34 
STORR, 423 
STRAUSS, 47, 51, 58 
STREITWOIF, 423 
STRONG, Justice Wm., 436 
STUART, Dr. Moses, 581 
SUMNER, Archbishop, 216 
SUPRAIAPSARIANS, 232, 233, 411 
SWEDENBORG, 564, 565 
SYILABUS, Papal, 432 
SYMBOIICS, 28 
SYNERGISTS, 100 
SYNERGISM, 448 
SYNOD oiVoxi, 105, 417 

Canons and Decrees of, 113, 126, 

235, 346, 352, 356, 454, 546 
SYNOD of Orange, 98 
S YNOD of Valence, 98 
SYSTEMATIC Theology, 22 

TA YLOR, Isaac, 248, 555 

TAYLOR, Dr. N. W., 160, 332, 457, 

458, 459, 521 
TELEOLOGICAL Argument. (See 

God.) 
TENNEMANN, 47 
TERTULLIAN, 94, 164, 569, 623 
THE O DICE, 243 
THEODORE of Mopsuestia, 387 
THEODOTUS, 103 
THEOLOGY, What? 15 

Three systems of, have always pre- 
vailed, 95, 96 
How far possible? 16 
Why desirable? 16 
Upon what fundamental questions 

does it rest? 17 
Its position in relation to other 
sciences, 17 



THE OLOGY {continued. ) 

The main divisions in the proposed 

arrangement stated, 17 
Departments of human knowledge 
auxiliary to the study of theol- 
ogy, 18, 19 
THEOLOGY, Natural, 19, 53 
Revealed, 53 
Exegetical, 20 
Biblical, 22 
Systematic, 22 
Practical, 24 
Historical, 26, 27 
THEOLOGY, Sources of, 53, 54, etc. 
Reason not the ultimate source of, 

58, 59 
Relation of, to Philosophy, 63 
THEOLOGY PROPER, 101, 106 
THOLUCK, Prof., 26 
THOMASIUS, Dr. Gottfried, 388 
THORNWELL, Dr. James, 357 
TILLEMONT, 100 
TISCHENDORF, 62 
TITCOMB, 61 

TRADITION Romish doctrine stated, 
82, 83, 92, and disproved, 83, 
84 
TRADUCIANISM, 351, 352 
TRANS UBSTANTIATION, Romish 

doctrine of, 635-639, 646-648 
TRICHOTOMY, 299, 300 
TRINITY, doctrine of, 164-199 
Meaning of word, 164 
Definition of terms, 164-167 
The several propositions involved, 

167, 168 
The divinity and separate person- 
ality of the Logos, 169-173 
The divinity and personality of the 

Holy Ghost, 173-176 
Doctrine directly taught in Script- 
ure, 176-178 
The Eternal Generation of the Son, 

178-188 
The Eternal Procession of the Holy 

Ghost, 188-192 
Heretical Opinions, 195-199 
Doctrine essential to Christianity, 
198, 199 
TUBINGEN, 58 
TULLOCH, 47, 58 

TURRETIN, Francis, 127, 137, 145, 
152, 164, 173, 182, 190, 258, 262, 
268, 272, 289, 315, 356, 359, 360, 
377, 402, 451, 460, 481, 497, 504, 
515, 516, 527, 528, 592, 603, 
632 
TYLER, Prof., 48 
TYNDAL, 50 
TYPOLOGY, 21 
TWISSE, 349, 411 



678 



INDEX. 



ULRICI, 47 

UNDERDONK, Bishop H. U., 457 
UNION with Christ. (See Christ.) 
UNITARIAN Churches, 104 
UNITARIANS, 103, 174, 198 
UNIVERSAL History, 18 
UPDE GRAFF, case of, 435 
URSINUS, 354, 380, 640 
US SHE R, Archbishop James, 297, 417 
UTILITARIAN THEORY OF MOR- 
ALS, 287 

VALENSES, 424 
VAN MILDER T, William, 48 
VICTOR, St. Hugo, 587 
VIRCHOW, 40 
VIRTUE, 286 

VIRTUOUS CHARACTER, 286, 287 
The ultimate seat of moral respon- 
sibility, 293, 295 
VITRINGA, 316 
VOLTAIRE, 48 
VON B RES, 640 
VOSSIUS, G. J., 356 

WACE, 61 

WALL, Dr. William, 623 

WALNUT STREET Church case, 

439 
WARDLA W, 61 
WA TSON, Richard, 106, 303, 304, 377, 

417, 418, 423, 538 



WEEKS, Dr. W. B., 403 

WEGSCHEIDER, 48, 57, 218 
WESLEY, 106, 224, 303, 321, 532, 

533 
WESLEYANS, 106 
WESSEL, John. 424 
WESTCOTT, Rev. B. F., 61 
WET STEIN, 105 
WHATELY, Archbishop, 216, 227, 

554, 583 
WHEDON, Dr. D. D., 224, 293, 294, 

302, 353 
WHITE, Rev. Ed., 583 
WIGGERS, Dr. G. F., 97, 334, 354, 

529 
WILLIAMS, 58 
WISSOWATIUS, 104 
WITHERSPOON, President, 356 
WITSIUS, 314, 356, 377 
WOLF, 57 
WOLFENBUTTEL FRAGMENTS, 

57 
JW^Z.S'Z'F, President Theodore, 157, 

158 
WYCLIFFE, 424 
YOUNG, Dr. John, 422 
ZOROASTER, 47 
ZWINGLE, 100, 639, 640 
ZWINGLIAN Doctrine of the Sacra- 
ments, 592, 595, 596 
Of Baptism, its Efficacy, 626 
Of Lord's Supper, its Efficacy, 643 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



